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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll