Does anyone know what happens at a Confiscation Enforcement hearing?

[bettlejuice]

....

[efpom]

The default sentence depends on the amount owing on the Confiscation Order see -https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/139

BECAUSE Enforcement hearings are heard by Magistrates who do NOT have jurisdiction to reduce a) the amount of the Confiscation Order or b) the length of the default sentence, there is, in my view, little prospect of avoiding a custodial sentence UNLESS payment in full of the amount specified in the Order is made before the hearing or a 'Certificate of Inadequacy'* is obtained.

Here the sentence will be between 3 and 5 years. Service of the default period will not expunge the Order. –

IF some of the Confiscation Order has been paid, the sentences is reduced proportionally.

*IF your friends are unable to pay the Confiscation Order, in full, it may be possible for them to apply for a ‘Certificate of Inadequacy’. However, if the application is rejected by the Court your friends will be sentenced to the default term of imprisonment.



https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/proceeds-crime

[bettlejuice]

I've literally read everything I can about POCA online - the case was subject to many court errors.
There was an initial hearing and the Judge supposedly drafted an order and gave it to counsel for submissions. There is no evidence of this at all and then out of nowhere a court order appeared almost a year later.

An appeal was then made to check the validity of the order after enquiries from the court who confirmed in writing that no order was ever written and case was closed!

The court of appeal made a Judgement that the order was indeed valid.

But... had the original Judge sent the draft order as he said he did, then the case could have been relisted and a proper defence could have been heard.

So now there is a confiscation hearing and they should have been allowed a relisted hearing, but they didn't due to court errors.

I've looked at the appeal Judgement and on the summary, it says 'we grant an extension of time and permission to appeal on ground 1 (ground 1 being the validity of the order) but dismiss the appeal.

What does that even mean?? I'm thinking it might mean they could still appeal the order itself, but not the validity of it?

Anyone know?

[efpom]

Post up the judgment, or a link to it.

Do either of your friends have previous convictions for fraud?

[bettlejuice]

I better not post their judgement online, but they are husband and wife (since seperated) she had previous before they met - he was of previous good character.
So basically they cannot appeal the order itself?

What I'm getting at is that it was determined it was valid, but wasn't defended properly due to a court error and now they are faced with enforcement of an overly infalted figure of 250K

[efpom]

https://www.5sah.co.uk/downloads/dow...3-judgment.pdf

[efpom]

The poster

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/mem...ettlejuicesent

me a private message, asking the following question -

"how did you find it without knowing who they were?"

The 'it' being the judgment.

R v Westbrook is a reasonably well known case - reported in legal commentary and is authority for the proposition that it is the judge’s pronouncement in court which constitutes the order; the written order should simply reflect that pronouncement.

I do not know either defendant - but the question as posed, does confirm that the posters 'friends', were the defendants in R v Westbrook

[bettlejuice]

Are you actually posting this suggesting I am the defendant?

[islandgirl]

A very interesting read Efpom thank you. Has the original question been removed?
Edit: I don't believe any such suggestion is made.

[bettlejuice]

I removed it, because the judgement was posted up here and my friends who I am genuinely trying to help do not know I have posted a question on here... This is me taking an active interest trying to get to the bottom of court errors and there are more that are not even mentioned to try and help. I don't think it's right that they and it appears many others in a similar position should pay twice at a huge expense to us taxpayers aswell actually...

[islandgirl]

Understand. As you say above the question is:

I've looked at the appeal Judgement and on the summary, it says 'we grant an extension of time and permission to appeal on ground 1 (ground 1 being the validity of the order) but dismiss the appeal. What does that even mean?? I'm thinking it might mean they could still appeal the order itself, but not the validity of it?

It will presumably be up to your friends (if they can appeal the order) that they do not have hidden assets. The court seemed quite certain they did, having read the judgment posted.

[bettlejuice]

" I do not know either defendant - but the question as posed, does confirm that the posters 'friends', were the defendants in R v Westbrook "

That does say to me that there is a suggestion that Efpom thinks I am the defendant - infact is trying to 'confirm' that I am....and has posted what was a private message on the main forum... Efpom is categorically wrong