Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Travel restrictions
| Date | 01 October 2017 |
| Published date | 01 October 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018317733395 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
In 2012, an open letter was signed by more than 50 individuals and organisations with expertise in
youth justice matters, calling on the government to accept the need to raise the age of criminal respon-
sibility (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/05/age-criminal-responsibility-childrens-
rights). England and Wales currently has one of the youngest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe;
10 years of age is well below the international average and breaches international rights instruments.
Lord Dholakia’s Private Members Bill, which seeks to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility
to 12, will receive its second reading in the Lords on Friday, 8 September 2017. Perhaps it is also time to
consider how the law regulates young people’s sexuality and sexual experimentation.
Natalie Wortley
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Travel restrictions
RvPritchard [2017] EWCA Crim 1267
Keywords
Proceeds of crime, confiscation, compliance order, travel restriction
The appellant (‘P’) was convicted with others of conspiracy fraudulently to evade duty, prohibition or
restriction on the importation of controlled drugs. The offence concerned importation of cannabis from
Greece. It was accepted for sentencing purposes that 108 kg had been imported. A further 36 kg were
intercepted. The trial judge assessed that P had a leading role in the conspiracy.
A confiscation order in the sum of £92,920 was made in respect of P. The benefit figure was
£246,240. The available amount of £92,920 derived from a jet ski valued at £4,000, plus £88,920, which
was stated on the order to represent ‘concealed assets’, location ‘not known’. Time to pay was set at 3
months, with 15 months imprisonment in default.
Documents filed by P during the confiscation proceedings set out his personal background. P was
an Irish citizen who had, for many years, lived and worked in Spain. His ex-wife and two of his three
adult children still resided in Spain (the remaining child lives in the UK). P returned to the UK in 2011,
living in rented accommodation until his conviction. He had formerly set up and run companies in
Spain, owned property in Turkey, and worked in Russia, Greece and other countries. According to the
statement filed by P under s. 18 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’), he estimated that
his annual income since 2011 had been £80,000–90,000. However, P had not submitted anytax returns
since 2011.
The confiscation order was made on 9 November 2016, along with a compliance order that included a
travel restriction order under s. 13A of the 2002 Act. P appealed on the ground that the judge had not
adopted the correct approach to the travel restriction order.
Section 13A came into force on 1 June 2015 and this was the first occasion on which the Court of
Appeal had cause to consider it.
Section 13A provides as follows:
13A—Orders for securing compliance with confiscation order
(1) This section applies where the court makes a confiscation order.
(2) The court may make such order as it believes is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that
the confiscation order is effective (a ‘compliance order’).
Court of Appeal 349
To continue reading
Request your trial