Drug Trafficking in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Steven William Montila and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Nov 2004

    A person may have reasonable grounds to suspect that property is one thing (A) when in fact it is something different (B). But that is not so when the question is what a person knows. A person cannot know that something is A when in fact it is B. The proposition that a person knows that something is A is based on the premise that it is true that it is A. The fact that the property is A provides the starting point. Then there is the question whether the person knows that the property is A.

  • R v Smith (David)
    • House of Lords
    • 13 Dic 2001

    These provisions show that, when considering the measure of the benefit obtained by an offender in terms of section 71(4), the court is concerned simply with the value of the property to him at the time when he obtained it or, if it is greater, at the material time. If in some circumstances it can operate in a penal or even a draconian manner, then that may not be out of place in a scheme for stripping criminals of the benefits of their crimes.

  • R v Rezvi
    • House of Lords
    • 24 Ene 2002

    It is a notorious fact that professional and habitual criminals frequently take steps to conceal their profits from crime. Effective but fair powers of confiscating the proceeds of crime are therefore essential. The provisions of the 1988 Act are aimed at depriving such offenders of the proceeds of their criminal conduct. Its purposes are to punish convicted offenders, to deter the commission of further offences and to reduce the profits available to fund further criminal enterprises.

  • R v Harmer (Roy Peter)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 21 Ene 2005

    This intention or knowledge is precisely what the prosecution in the present case accepted they could not prove when the words "knew or" were omitted from the particulars of count 2. If the prosecution cannot prove that the money was the proceeds of crime, they cannot prove that the appellant knew that it was. So section 1(2) of the 1977 Act applies and is not satisfied.

  • R v Raymond George May
    • House of Lords
    • 14 May 2008

    He had made five trips to Ireland taking with him a total of £2.5m, the proceeds of drug trafficking. The trial judge found that he had benefited from drug trafficking to the extent of £3m. But the question under sections 2(3) and 4(1) of the 1994 Act is whether a defendant has received any payment or other reward in connection with drug trafficking, and this will ordinarily require a payment or reward to him, whether on his own or jointly.

    (6) D ordinarily obtains property if in law he owns it, whether alone or jointly, which will ordinarily connote a power of disposition or control, as where a person directs a payment or conveyance of property to someone else. Mere couriers or custodians or other very minor contributors to an offence, rewarded by a specific fee and having no interest in the property or the proceeds of sale, are unlikely to be found to have obtained that property.

  • HM Advocate and Another v Robert McIntosh
    • Privy Council
    • 05 Feb 2001

    The court is concerned only with confiscation of the kind which the law prescribes where the conviction is for a drug trafficking offence. The assumptions on which the court is being asked to proceed do not require the court to hold that he has been engaged in criminal conduct. They have much more to do with the civil process of tracing (a restitutionary remedy), especially where, as in this case, the court is asked to bring the value of implicative gifts into the assessment.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results