Saccoccia v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

Saccoccia v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

The applicant's conviction, sentence, and the 1995 Rhode Island Forfeiture Order remain valid and enforceable; he was legally represented and had adequate notice; he failed to prove lack of other assets; and the judge was entitled to refuse release of funds and to register the forfeiture order.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Stephen Saccoccia; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service; Respondent: United States of America Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture Order Registration, Drug Trafficking Offences, Right to Legal Representation, Due Process, Article 6 ECHR
Criminal Law Confiscation Extradition Forfeiture Order Registration Drug Trafficking Offences Right to Legal Representation Due Process Article 6 ECHR

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mr Stephen Saccoccia

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

United States of America Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for registration of the US forfeiture order was valid under UK law
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied due process and Article 6 rights
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing release of funds for legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's conviction, sentence, and the 1995 Rhode Island Forfeiture Order remain valid and enforceable; he was legally represented and had adequate notice; he failed to prove lack of other assets; and the judge was entitled to refuse release of funds and to register the forfeiture order.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed