Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2014] All ER (D) 210 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2014] UKSC 5
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Neuberger P, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson SCJJ

Representation Ronan Lavery QC and Michael Duffy BL (instructed by Rafferty & Donaghy Solicitors) for the first appellant.
  David A Schofield QC and Donal Sayers BL (instructed by Rafferty & Donaghy Solicitors) for the second appellant.
  Julian Knowles QC and Frances Lynch BL (instructed by McNamee McDonnell Duffy Solicitors LLP) for the third appellant.
  Julian Knowles QC and Frances Lynch BL (instructed by McNamee McDonnell Duffy Solicitors LLP) for the fourth appellant.
  Liam McCollum QC and David McDowell BL (instructed by the Public Prosecution Service or Northern Ireland) for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 29 January 2014

Catchwords

Sentence - Confiscation order - Fraudulent evasion of excise duty - Benefit - Appellants pleading guilty to offences involving evasion of duty - Appellants agreeing to confiscation orders being made - Orders made based on benefit said to have been obtained by appellants being the value of the duty evaded - Confiscation orders being upheld on appeal on ground appellants bound by orders to which they had consented - Whether person precluded from appealing confiscation order made by consent where consent given due to mistake of law - Whether person who comes into physical possession of dutiable goods knowing duty evaded and who plays active role in handing benefited by having obtained goods - .

The Case

Sentence Confiscation order. The appellants had all pleaded guilty to offences involving the fraudulent evasion of duty on cigarettes. Confiscation orders were made by consent in respect of what was said to be the benefit obtained by the appellants equal to the duty evaded. The confiscation orders were upheld on appeal. Two questions were considered by the Supreme Court regarding (i) the ability to appeal against a confiscation order made by consent where consent had been given due to a mistake of law and (ii) the circumstances in which a person could be found to have benefited for the purposes of s158 of the .

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.