Guraj, R v
The combination of prosecution delays and breaches, including the making of a forfeiture order during the postponement period, triggered section 14(12) of POCA, which expressly prohibits reliance on section 14(11) to save the confiscation order. As a result, the court was deprived of the power to make the confiscation order, and the order must be quashed.
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Lodvik Guraj
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 06 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; confiscation order quashed.
- Legal Topics
- Confiscation Proceedings, Proceeds of Crime Act, Forfeiture Orders, Procedural Compliance, Postponement of Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Lodvik Guraj
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether substantial breaches of sections 14 and 15 of POCA invalidate confiscation proceedings even if completed within two years
- 2 Whether section 14(11) of POCA can save a confiscation order where a forfeiture order was wrongly made during the postponement period
Ratio Decidendi
The combination of prosecution delays and breaches, including the making of a forfeiture order during the postponement period, triggered section 14(12) of POCA, which expressly prohibits reliance on section 14(11) to save the confiscation order. As a result, the court was deprived of the power to make the confiscation order, and the order must be quashed.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; confiscation order quashed.
Orders
- The confiscation order is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment