Attorney General, Re References Nos 83 & 84 of 2005

Attorney General, Re References Nos 83 & 84 of 2005

The court found that, as interpreted in Soneji and Sekhon, 'exceptional circumstances' should not be construed too strictly; the prosecution’s explanation for delay, absence of a timetable, and the need for only a short adjournment constituted exceptional circumstances, making the failure to make confiscation orders unduly lenient.

Parties
Applicant: Her Majesty’s Attorney General; First Offender: Raymond Jerome Legall; Second Offender: Tracy Macaulay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Application for Leave to Make a Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Leave granted; failure to make confiscation orders was unduly lenient.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Drug Trafficking, Sentencing, Exceptional Circumstances, Procedural Requirements
Criminal Law Confiscation Orders Drug Trafficking Sentencing Exceptional Circumstances Procedural Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty’s Attorney General

Applicant

Raymond Jerome Legall

First Offender

Tracy Macaulay

Second Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Application for Leave to Make a Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to make confiscation orders within statutory time limits was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'exceptional circumstances' for postponement under Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and Criminal Justice Act 1988
  3. 3 Jurisdictional consequences of procedural defects in confiscation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, as interpreted in Soneji and Sekhon, 'exceptional circumstances' should not be construed too strictly; the prosecution’s explanation for delay, absence of a timetable, and the need for only a short adjournment constituted exceptional circumstances, making the failure to make confiscation orders unduly lenient.

Court Disposition

Leave granted; failure to make confiscation orders was unduly lenient.

Orders

  • A hearing will take place to determine what confiscation orders should now be made.