The defendant was made subject to a confiscation order. He appealed on the basis that the court had left two alternatives versions to the jury, and that it should therefore, when making such an order, take the version most favourable to the defendant.
Held: There was no such obligation. The rule in Efionayi applied only to a sentencing case strictu sensu. This is not such. The duty to make the assessment was placed on the Court, and in this context that meant the judge not the jury. He was therefore right to apply his own judgement.
Judges:
Lord Justice Waller, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Citations:
Times 10-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Crim 2892, [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 198
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Regina v Efionayi CACD 1995
. .
Cited by:
Applied – Ruddick v Regina CACD 16-Apr-2003
A judge was required to take into account a confiscation order before making an order for costs, but that need not invalidate the orders. Was a financial order made before the forfeiture process was complete void or merely a ground for appeal? The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.167353