Constantine, R. v

Constantine, R. v

The judge was correct not to make a costs order at the time of sentencing because confiscation proceedings had been instigated and postponed. The judge had the power to adjourn the issue of costs beyond the 28-day period after the conclusion of confiscation proceedings, and the costs order made on 4 February 2010 was valid.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Mark Anthony Constantine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Conviction and Confiscation Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Costs Orders, Sentencing Procedure, Postponement of Proceedings
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Costs Orders Sentencing Procedure Postponement of Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mark Anthony Constantine

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Conviction and Confiscation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge could properly postpone making a costs order until after confiscation proceedings were concluded
  2. 2 Whether a costs order made more than 28 days after the conclusion of confiscation proceedings was valid

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct not to make a costs order at the time of sentencing because confiscation proceedings had been instigated and postponed. The judge had the power to adjourn the issue of costs beyond the 28-day period after the conclusion of confiscation proceedings, and the costs order made on 4 February 2010 was valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs order of £8,992.97 against the appellant affirmed