Haisman & Ors, R v

Haisman & Ors, R v

The exchanges in court and acquiescence of counsel before sentencing constituted a manifest judicial decision to postpone confiscation proceedings, satisfying the requirements of s.72A Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Sharon Haisman; Appellant: Myles Lant; Appellant: Ronald Miller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Orders
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Postponement of Confiscation Proceedings, Judicial Discretion, Criminal Justice Act 1988 S.72 a
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Postponement of Confiscation Proceedings Judicial Discretion Criminal Justice Act 1988 S.72 a

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Sharon Haisman

Appellant

Myles Lant

Appellant

Ronald Miller

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge made a judicial decision to postpone confiscation proceedings before sentencing as required by s.72A Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the postponement decision was made manifest and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The exchanges in court and acquiescence of counsel before sentencing constituted a manifest judicial decision to postpone confiscation proceedings, satisfying the requirements of s.72A Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against confiscation orders dismissed.