Regina v Thacker: 1994

The question arose as to whether drugs which had been seized by Customs could be described as property held by the defendant.
Held: Lord Bingham CJ said: ‘It appears that seizure by the Customs and Excise under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 has the effect of forfeiting the drugs so that they are no longer the property of the former owner: see [1995] Crim LR 89 at 90-91. But even if the drugs had still been held by the defendant within the meaning of section 62(5)(a) of the 1994 Act — and this could well be the position where it was the police and not the Customs and Excise who seized the drugs — so that the property would on its face be realisable property within the meaning of section 6(2)(a) of the 1994 Act, the drugs would still be without value as realisable property. That is because, by virtue of section 7(1) of the 1994 Act to which we have already made reference, the value of the property is to be taken as its market value and the market value must be the market value if the property is sold lawfully. In the case of drugs, it is obvious that the drugs cannot be sold lawfully and therefore they have no market value.’
Lord Bingham CJ
(1994) 16 Cr App R (S) 461
England and Wales
Cited by:
ApprovedRegina v Dore CACD 19-Dec-1996
A confiscation order was to be made. The judge included the purchase price of the drugs forfeited.
Held: As the drugs had been forfeited they were no longer the property of the former owner. So he was in no position to realise that property as . .
CitedIslam, Regina v HL 10-Jun-2009
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order saying that it should not have been set at values which reflected the black market value of the drugs he had imported.
Held: The appeal failed. The court could take account of the illegal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.374253