The defendant and a co-defendant admitted drugs offences. They were found to have jointly benefited in accordance with section 1(2) of the 1986 Act, that the extent of that benefit was andpound;9,600 and that they should jointly and severally be ordered to pay that sum. The Court was asked whether the confiscation order could properly be joint and several, or whether it should be several, with each of them being required to pay andpound;4,800.
Held: The Act did not contemplate joint penalties. The court must, as between co-defendants, determine their respective shares of any joint benefit that they might have received as a result of their drug trafficking, and that in the absence of any evidence the court was entitled to assume that they were sharing equally. The orders were quashed and several orders for andpound;4,800 substituted in each case.
Citations:
[1990] 1 WLR 1260
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Criticised – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.270200
