The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the 1995 Act was not in force, did the fact that the notice served by the prosecution was not in the form required by section 72, CJA 1988 mean that the court had no jurisdiction to make a confiscation order?
Held: The court had sat with 5 judges to consider the decision in Sekhon. The rules as to precedent reflect the practice of the courts and have to be applied bearing in mind that their objective is to assist in the administration of justice. The law was misunderstood and misapplied in Palmer. The court applied Sekhon and found that it had jurisdiction to make the order. Having considered the evidence put before the judge, his conclusions as to the resources available to the defendant were not to be criticised. The provisions concerning postponement were directory only.
Lord Woolf CJ: ‘The rules as to precedent reflect the practice of the courts and have to be applied bearing in mind that their objective is to assist in the administration of justice. They are of considerable importance because of their role in achieving the appropriate degree of certainty as to the law. This is an important requirement of any system of justice. The principles should not, however, be regarded as so rigid that they cannot develop in order to meet contemporary needs. ‘
Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Mitchell Mrs Justice Hallett Mr Justice Pitchers Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales
[2003] EWCA Crim 1499, Times 26-May-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2004] QB 118, [2003] 3 WLR 337, [2003] Cr App R 36, [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 24, [2003] 2 Cr App R 36, [2003] 3 All ER 531
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71, Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 16(5)(c)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
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, . .
Disapproved – Palmer, Regina v CACD 11-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed against a very substantial confiscation order. The prosecution had served notices under sections 71 and 72(1), but the section 72(1) notice was invalid. The judge allowed a second notice to be served, and the case to be . .
Cited – In re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd CA 1990
The court gave guidelines for the periods of disqualification to be applied for company directors under the Act. The maximum period of ten years should be reserved for only the most serious of cases. Periods of two to five years should apply to . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited – Mirehouse v Rennell 1833
Parke B described how the elements of a common law offence are to be distilled from the cases in which the relevant principles have been set out: ‘Our common-law system consists in the applying to new combinations of circumstances those rules of law . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited – Regina v Merriman CACD 1973
Although the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is not so strictly bound by its own previous decisions as is the civil division, its liberty to depart from precedent which it is convinced was erroneous is restricted to cases where the . .
Cited – Regina v Gould CACD 1968
Diplock LJ said: ‘In its criminal jurisdiction, which it has inherited from the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court of Appeal does not apply the doctrine of stare decisis with the same rigidity as in its civil jurisdiction. If upon due consideration . .
Cited – Critchell v Lambeth Borough Council CA 1957
The court considered conflicting interpretations of Acts: It would be wrong for the court to introduce into a matter already in all conscience complicated enough, and made complicated by imperfections of drafting, refinements and narrow distinctions . .
Cited – Regina v Copeland CACD 2002
The court considered the necessary of any postponment of a dermination of a confiscation order.
Held: The court rejected the contention that the postponement order must specify the period of postponement. It was pointed out that the word used . .
Cited – Regina v Newsome CACD 1970
The court was dealing with the question of a guideline judgment on sentence. There was good reason to adopt a flexible approach. The discretion to depart from a previous precedent was not to be exercised lightly and we endorse that restrictive and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v R (Sentencing: Extended licences) CACD 25-Jul-2003
The imposition of an extended period of licence in respect of offences committed before 1992 did not infringe the defendant’s human rights. The defendant had been convicted of offences from 1976 and 1982. The commencement date for the 1991 Act was 1 . .
Cited – Goodyear, Karl, Regina v CACD 19-Apr-2005
The defendant complained that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption on the basis of an indication from the judge that he would not receive a custodial sentence. Having pleaded guilty he had then been sentenced to a six months prison . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
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 . .
Cited – Gazette Media Company Ltd. and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Teeside Crown Court CACD 26-Jul-2005
The claimants appealed an order restricting their reporting of a criminal case so as to identify the defendant.
Held: Orders preventing the naming of a defendant in order to protect associated children are unlikely to enhance any child . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Cited – In re Hill and Others (Restraint Order) CACD 20-Dec-2005
The Revenue appealed against discharge of a restraint order. The discharge had been on the basis that some of the offences under investigation (perpetrating a fraud on the revenue) took place before the 2002 Act came into effect.
Held: The . .
Cited – Rowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007
The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
Held: The decision in . .
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.182379
