header-logo header-logo

10 May 2024
Issue: 8070 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 10 May 2024

Confiscation order

R v Haden and others [2024] All ER (D) 95 (Apr), [2024] EWCA Crim 344

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the prosecution’s application for leave to appeal against refusals by the Crown Court judges to make confiscation orders against the defendants because of a failure to complete the proceedings within the permitted time provided by s 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There were four unrelated cases before the court which involved the determination as to whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the permitted period beyond the two years from conviction. Applying the relevant authorities, the court held that exceptional circumstances existed in all the defendants’ cases within which the confiscation proceedings should be determined. Compliance with the procedural requirements of s 14 of the Act was not a condition precedent to the court retaining jurisdiction to make a confiscation order. Jurisdiction would be retained until the proceedings were determined following s 6 of the 2002 Act. In the first case, the court’s failure

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll