Sekhon & Ors v R, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division, December 16, 2002, [2003] 1 Cr App R 34,[2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 38,[2003] 1 WLR 1655,[2003] 3 All ER 508,[2002] EWCA Crim 2954,[2003] Crim LR 642

Extract

---

Sekhon & Ors v R, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division, December 16, 2002, [2003] 1 Cr App R 34,[2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 38,[2003] 1 WLR 1655,[2003] 3 All ER 508,[2002] EWCA Crim 2954,[2003] Crim LR 642

Case No: (1) 1999/05684/X2

(2) 2000/01015/X2

(3) 2000/01016/X2

(4) 2000/01245/X2

(5) 2001/04807/Y2

(6) 2001/04865/Y2

(7) 2002/00603/W1

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Crim 2954

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM CROWN COURT AT

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE (HHJ WOOD)

AND CROWN COURT AT KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES

(HHJ HAWORTH)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand,

London, WC2A 2LL

Monday 16 December 2002

Before :

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES,

MR JUSTICE HOLLAND

and

MR JUSTICE KEITH

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Balbir Singh (instructed by Murria Solicitors, Birmingham) for the 1st Appellant

Mr Avtar Bhatoa (instructed by Bassra Solicitors, Bradford) for the 2nd Appellant

Mr Robert Rhodes QC and Mr Simon Taylor (instructed by Pannone and Partners, Manchester) for the 3rd Appellant

Mr Sunit Sandhu (instructed by Harbans Singh Solicitors, Birmingham) for the 4th Appellant

Mr Christopher Campbell-Clyne (instructed by Harkarys Solicitors, London) for the 5th Appellant

Mr Joseph Boothby for the 6th Appellant

Mr Jason Smith for the Applicant (7)

Mr David Perry and Mr John Muir (instructed by The Solicitor for H.M Customs and Excise, London) for the Crown (Appellants 1,2,3,4)

Mr Michael Brompton (instructed by The Solicitor for H.M Customs and Excise, London) for the Crown (Appellants 5,6)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

The Lord Chief Justice:

INTRODUCTION

1. One of the most successful weapons which can be used to discourage offences that are committed in order to enrich the offenders is to ensure that if the offenders are brought to justice, any profit which they have made from their offending is confiscated. It is therefore not surprising that Parliament has repeatedly enacted legislation designed to enable the courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime.

2. Regrettably a series of cases have come before the courts recently which reveal that the prosecuting authorities, including the advocates appearing for them, have been attaching far too little significance to ensuring that confiscation proceedings are effective. A series of cases have resulted in orders for the confiscation of substantial sums being set aside for the failure to adhere to procedural requirements that are often of a technical nature.

3. Furthermore, until Mr Perry was instructed to appear in the present cases, on behalf of the prosecution, important arguments as to the effect of non-compliance with procedural requirements were not placed before the courts.

4. These repeated failures on the part of prosecuting authorities should not be allowed to continue. The sort of mistakes being made are apparent from the cases to which it will be necessary to refer in this judgment which relates to appeals arising out of three prosecutions. The first prosecution is in respect of Daljit Singh Sekhon, Satnam Singh, Shangara Singh and Gurdev Singh Dhnoay. The second prosecution relates to Kevin McFaul and the third prosecution to Richard Michael Knights and Kevin Maguire.

5. It is convenient before turning to the circumstances of these cases to set out the statutory framework. It is also desirable to consider the large body of case law that has accumulated around that legislation. In relation to both the legislation and the case law we are indebted to Mr Perry for the account that he provided. In the description that we now provide, we rely heavily on his extrem...

See the full content of this document

---