‘This case note discusses the power of a judge of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to make an extended civil restraint order under para 3.2 (1) (b).’
NIPC Law, 12th Ocotber 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘A 40 year old man has today been sentenced to four months imprisonment suspended for 18 months after pleading guilty to one charge relating to revenge pornography. Simon Humphrey was sentenced at St Albans Magistrates’ Court after he admitted at an earlier hearing that he had published a naked picture of the victim without her consent. A restraining order was also put in place for 18 months which means he may not contact the victim.’
Crown Prosecution Service, 18th September 2015
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
‘A man has been jailed for 16 weeks for posting sexually explicit photographs of a woman on social media.’
Full story
BBC News, 19th August 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Not Albert Square, but it could be. The Crown Prosecution Service suspect two individuals of a massive duty/VAT fraud in their cash and carry businesses. The CPS go to the Crown Court (in the absence of the individuals) and get an order to appoint a receiver (i.e. a paid manager) to run the affairs of companies (Eastenders) in which the individuals are involved, as well as a restraint order against the individuals. Both receivership and restraint orders are set aside some months later by the Court of Appeal, on the basis that the HMRC investigator’s statements were largely “broad and unsupported assertions”. Problem: by then the receiver had run up £772,547 in fees.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th May 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
‘The High Court has slapped an extended civil restraint order on a former solicitor whose conduct in bringing a series of claims established a “history” of indifference to court orders.’
Legal Futures, 11th March 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Regina v Padda [2013] EWCA Crim 2330; [2013] WLR (D) 496
‘Section 22(4)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 preserved an obligation on the court and a discretion to make a confiscation order which was just and in so doing it could take into account all relevant circumstances and had to take into account the legislative policy in favour of maximising the recovery of the proceeds of crime, even from legitimately acquired assets.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Asylum seeker who was returned to UK in a failed deportation attempt will stay in the country pending judicial review.’
The Guardian, 5th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Repeal section 41 (4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act to level the playing field and ease pressure on the public purse.”
The Lawyer, 15th April 2013
Source: www.thelawyer.com
Glatt v Sinclair (Glatt and others intervening) [2013] EWCA Civ 241; [2013] WLR (D) 134
“A court had power to make an order permitting a receiver appointed by the court under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to recover remuneration, disbursements and expenses for work done relating to the receivership once the receivership order had been discharged.”
WLR Daily, 26th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where restraint orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were later set aside, the remuneration and expenses of the management receiver appointed under those orders were not recoverable either out of the assets of the companies to which the restraint orders related or from the Crown Prosecution Service.”
WLR Daily, 23rd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A man who abused a Tory MP in a crude email after the politician was headbutted by a rival at Westminster was fined £110 and ordered to pay £100 costs yesterday. Nicholas Scales told MP Stuart Andrew to ‘stop wasting police time and get your fucking job done’, Leeds magistrates court heard.”
The Guardian, 22nd August 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A television producer who searched the internet for a former classmate 40,000 times, paid for background searches on the woman’s husband and posed as a parent at her daughter’s nursery is facing jail.”
Daily Telegraph, 13th July 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Stalkers, including those who use the internet to target victims, will face tougher action, it was announced today, as prosecutors admitted they have failed to take the problem seriously in the past.”
The Guardian, 23rd September 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
In re M (Restraint order: Reasonable living expenses)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Where reasonable living expenses were made available as an exception to a restraining order, those expenses could not be used to pay contributions to the Legal Services Commission for publicly funded representation in related proceedings.”
The Times, 16th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
King v Director of Serious Fraud Office [2009] UKHL 17; [2009] WLR (D) 100
“The Crown Court’s jurisdiction, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005, to make a restraint and disclosure order following a request by a foreign prosecutor was restricted to property located within England and Wales.”
WLR Daily, 18th March 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in once of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
House of Lords
“The crown court’s jurisdiction to make a restraint and disclosure order following a request by a foreign prosecutor under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order (SI 2005 No 3181) was restricted to property located within England and Wales.”
The Times, 19th March 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.
Regina v M (Restraint order: Jurisdiction)
Court of Appeal
“A trial judge did have jurisdiction to try an application by the prosecution for a defendant to be committed for contempt for allegedly breaching a restraint order.”
The Times, 24th 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.
“Where a defendant in criminal proceedings was said to have breached a restraint order, imposed under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by making certain prohibited transactions a judge of the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try an application made by the prosecution for the defendant to be committed for contempt.”
WLR Daily, 1st September 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.
Irwin Mitchell (a Firm) v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office and Another
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“It was not the purpose of a criminal restraint order to prevent third parties from enforcing civil rights against a defendant if those rights would be unaffected by a confiscation order which might be made against the defendant at the end of criminal proceedings against him.”
The Times, 27th 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.
© Inner Temple Library 2024