Court of Appeal
“Where a defendant had been sentenced to an absolute or conditional discharge, the crown court had no power to impose a confiscation order.”
The Times, 1st July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Where a confiscation order was made pursuant to s 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or s 6(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against a defendant in respect of his benefit from his criminal conduct for the offence of acting in contravention of an order or undertaking disqualifying him from being a company director, that benefit was not simply to be assessed as the turnover of the relevant company, but as the value of the property obtained by the defendant himself, as determined in accordance with ordinary common law principles of entitlement and ownership.”
WLR Daily, 30th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R v Clarke (Joseph) [2009] EWCA Crim 1074; [2009] WLR (D) 188
“The Crown Court had no power to impose a confiscation order against a defendant following conviction of an offence for which he or she had been sentenced by way of an absolute or conditional discharge.”
WLR Daily, 16th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
House of Lords
“It was consistent with both the language and spirit of the statutory scheme for making confiscation orders for the importation of prohibited drugs to take account of the black market value of such drugs when valuing the benefit obtained by the defendant at the time of their illegal importation.”
Times Law Reports, 12th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
R v Islam [2009] UKHL 30; [2009] WLR (D) 177
“When assessing the ‘market value’ of goods for the purposes of making a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the court was not restricted to looking at the value of the goods in a legitimate market but was required to look at the nature of the goods and the context it which the assessment was being made. If the only market in which the goods in question could be bought and sold was an illegitimate one, the court was entitled to take account of the price which a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in that illegitimate market in order to assess the benefit obtained by the defendant.”
WLR Daily, 10th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A defendant has escaped confiscation proceedings because she was unable to find an advocate willing to accept the legal aid rate to represent her. The court’s decision, upheld in the Court of Appeal, will fuel an ongoing dispute over the levels of legal aid fees.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 4th June 2009
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“On 29 April 2009 the House of Lords confirmed that the prosecution are entitled in confiscation proceedings (i) to prove that the defendant had committed offences other than those to which he had pleaded or in respect of which he had been convicted and (ii) to invite the court to estimate the profit that he must have made from those offences: R. v. Briggs-Price [2009] UKHL 19.”
The Bar Council, 8th May 2009
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
R v Briggs-Price [2009] UKHL 19; [2009] WLR (D) 142
“A confiscation order could be made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 in respect of benefit derived from drug trafficking other than that of which the defendant had been convicted which had been established by evidence during the trial.”
WLR Daily, 1st May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
House of Lords
“A confiscation order could be made against a convicted drug trafficker in respect of benefit received from other drug trafficking which had not been charged on the indictment but which had been established by evidence during the trial.”
The Times, 30th April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina v Khan Regina v Lockett; Regina v Carrington
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Confiscation orders made under old regulations in tobacco-smuggling cases had to be quashed because the prosecuting authority had overlooked the fact that new regulations had narrowed the categories of persons liable to pay excise duty.”
The Times, 23rd April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“For the purpose of making the required assumptions in order to determine whether a defendant had benefited from drug trafficking, the Crown was required to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had made payments out of payments received by him in connection with his drug trafficking. Prima facie evidence that the defendant had incurred such expenditure was insufficient.”
The Times, 12th January 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R v Winters:[2008] EWCA Crim 2953; [2008] WLR (D) 387
“For the purpose of making the required assumptions in relation to determining whether the defendant had benefited from drug trafficking, the Crown was required to prove on the balance of probabilities that expenditure on mortgage payments was incurred by the defendant out of payments received by him in connection with his drug trafficking. Prima facie evidence that the defendant had incurred such expenditure was insufficient.”
WLR Daily, 15th December 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“The words ‘proceedings before the crown court’ in section 6(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 meant proceedings under a single indictment. The expression did not cover everything, in whatever form, before the court on the date when sentence was to be imposed.”
The Times, 26th November 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A leading judge has told the BBC he fears a conflict of interest as courts increasingly depend on income from fines and confiscations to operate.”
BBC News, 18th November 2008
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
European Court of Human Rights
“It was not incompatible with the notion of a fair hearing in criminal proceedings for the onus of proof to be placed on the accused to provide a credible account of his financial situation, once it has been proved that he had been involved in extensive and lucrative drug dealing over a period of years.”
The Times, 2nd October 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The police have been ordered to return £14,000 they confiscated from the son of an exiled Muslim cleric after a judge ruled the cash was not intended for ‘terrorist purposes’.
The Independent, 19th September 2008
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings plc (in Administration) and Another
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“A restraint order should not be varied to allow for the payment of a debt to an unsecured creditor.”
The Times, 18th August 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings plc (in Administration) and M [2008] EWCA Crim 1443; [2008] WLR (D) 235
“A restraint order should not be varied so as to allow for the payment of a debt to an unsecured creditor unless there was no conflict with the object of satisfying any confiscation order that had been or might be made.”
WLR Daily, 11th July 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Gibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office
Court of Appeal
“When a confiscation order was made against a convicted drug dealer, his wife was entitled to keep her 50 per cent interest in the matrimonial home, despite a finding in the confiscation proceedings that she had guilty knowledge of the source of her husband’s wealth. The court had no power to supplement the provisions of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 so as to bring her share of the equity in the matrimonial home within the order.”
The Times, 14th July 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“Two businessmen jailed last month in the UK’s first price-fixing prosecution have been ordered to surrender over £1 million of assets at a confiscation hearing.”
The Times, 1st July 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025