If the court could only postpone confiscation proceedings in exceptional circumstances, it behoved the court before allowing such an adjournment to enquire into the justification, and to record the circumstances which made it exceptional. The defendants appealed confiscation orders made after an extended delay.
Held: The freedom to allow a delay was only under exceptional circumstances, and such circumstances had to be recorded. That requirement now applied also under comon law (October). Though confiscation order were not to be set aside for mere failures of procedure (Sekhon), that did not displace the need for exceptional circumstances. In the absence of a finding of such, the orders failed.
References: Times 01-Jul-2003, [2003] EWCA Crim 1765, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2004] 1 Cr App R(S) 219
Links: Bailii
Judges: Pill LJ, Gray, Roderick Evans JJ
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1988 72A
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Regina v Shevki and Michael John Steele CACD 14-Dec-2000 (Times 11-Jan-01, , [2000] EWCA Crim 70, [2001] 2 Cr App R(S) 178)
The making of a confiscation order is part of sentencing. Such an order might be delayed provided the determination was made within six months of conviction. If in the circumstances of the case of an adjournment beyond that period was necessary, . . - Cited – Regina v October CACD 27-Feb-2003 (Times 11-Mar-03, Gazette 24-Apr-03)
The court had adjourned its proceedings in the absence of the defendant, so as not to fall foul of the requirement that a confiscation inquiry must take place within six months of conviction. The defendant appealed.
Held: The court could . . - Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002 (Times 27-Dec-02, [2003] 1 Cr App R 575, [2003] 1 WLR 1655, , [2002] EWCA Crim 2954)
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . . - At Court of Appeal – Bullen And Soneji v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jun-2007 (3383/06, , [2007] ECHR 531)
. . - At Court of Appeal – Bullen and Soneji v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jan-2009 (, [2009] ECHR 28, , [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 210)
The claimants said that the confiscation and money-laundering proceedings taken against them had taken too long, with delays of 43 months out of a total of 66 month case attributable to the state.
Held: The delay was too long. The applicants . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.184145 br>