McCready, R. v [2003] EWCA Crim 2 (14 February 2003)

McCready, R. v [2003] EWCA Crim 2 (14 February 2003)

The judge made a decision to postpone the confiscation proceedings before passing sentence and made that decision manifest by the timetable set for exchange of statements, which, in context, specified the period of postponement sufficiently to comply with statutory requirements. The failure to use explicit words was not fatal as the period was clear to all parties.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Crim 2
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Michael McCready
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order Following Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Postponement of Confiscation Proceedings, Judicial Discretion, Procedural Compliance
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Drug Trafficking Act 1994 Postponement of Confiscation Proceedings Judicial Discretion Procedural Compliance

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Michael McCready

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order Following Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to postpone the confiscation proceedings before passing sentence, rendering the confiscation order a nullity
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to specify the period of postponement as required by statute, invalidating the order

Ratio Decidendi

The judge made a decision to postpone the confiscation proceedings before passing sentence and made that decision manifest by the timetable set for exchange of statements, which, in context, specified the period of postponement sufficiently to comply with statutory requirements. The failure to use explicit words was not fatal as the period was clear to all parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation order upheld
  • No order as to costs