R v Connors and others

Sentence Detention. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division refused leave to refer sentences imposed on two defendants and refused to interfere with the sentences imposed on two further defendants in circumstances where the defendants, all members of the same family, had been convicted of a single count of conspiracy to require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour.

R v Jaffery

Sentence Confiscation order. The defendant was convicted of money laundering. A confiscation order was made in the sum of 4.83m. In making that order, the judge had found that the defendant had to have received a commission of not less than 10% of the sums laundered. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal against the confiscation order in part, held that, given the uncertain state of the evidence, it was not in a position to determine a specific 'not less than' figure. Accordingly, the confiscation order was quashed and various directions made to the Crown Court.

Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and others v Skarga and others

Conflict of laws Tort. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a finding that the claimants' allegation of bribery against the defendants was governed by Russian law. On the facts, Russian law was the applicable law, it had not been displaced by English law, and accordingly the judge had been right to dismiss the claim.

R v Mahmood

Sentence Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division allowed a defendant's appeal against a confiscation order, following a conviction for conspiracy to import heroin, only to the extent of reducing the defendant's benefit by the amount which represented the expenses incurred in commission of the offence as the judge had been wrong to conclude that evidence showed that the defendant incurred those expenses. In all other respects, the confiscation order remained as originally imposed.

Pinnick v Court of First Instance No 2 of La Linea De La Conception, Spain

Extradition Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Spain was ordered for conspiracy to import cocaine. He appealed on the ground that the European arrest warrant (the EAW) did not contain the required information and was not an accusation warrant. The respondent contended that an annex to the EAW contained the required information. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that an annex was not part of an EAW and the EAW was accordingly invalid. However, the EAW was clearly an accusation warrant.

*Serious Organised Crime Agency v Azam and others

Proceeds of crime Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. A property freezing order ordered the balance of the first defendant's funds in a Luxembourg bank to be brought within the jurisdiction. The defendants sought an order that the money should be returned, following the subsequent decision in Perry v Serious Organised Crime Agency (). The claimant Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) sought to rely on similar fact evidence of the first defendant's conviction for money laundering in the United Arab Emirates. The Queen's Bench Division held that the money had been lawfully brought within the jurisdiction and there were no grounds for returning it to Luxembourg. It further held that it would be open to SOCA to use the disclosure order to obtain information which related to the first defendant's criminal conduct.

Hampshire County Council v Beazley and another

Sentence Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division allowed the prosecution's appeal in circumstances where a judge had stayed a confiscation process pursuant to the because, amongst other things, the judge was unhappy with the effect the confiscation order sought would have on the defendants

R v Lee and another

Criminal law Appeal. The defendants were husband and wife and had pleaded guilty to offences of conspiracy to rob and money laundering. They appealed against the confiscation order on a number of grounds which challenged the calculation of benefit and assessment of available assets. Largely, their appeals failed except one ground which related to the benefit received by way of a mortgage advance. It was conceded by the Crown that following the case of R v Waya[2012] All ER (D) 166 (Nov) that sum should not have been included in the benefit figure for both defendants.

*Shea v Winchester Crown Court

Criminal law Bail. The claimant was charged with fraud offences and challenged the refusal of bail by a judge of the defendant court. He contended that there was no impediment to the judge ordering bail, as a condition against commercial activity or fraudulent activity of a commercial nature could be supported adequately by a surety. The Divisional Court, in refusing bail, held that Parliament had intended that a surety should be provided only to secure surrender to custody and not to secure performance of any other condition. Further, Parliament had intended the to provide a comprehensive code.

*R v Plunkett and another

Criminal law Appeal. The defendants had been convicted of aggravated burglary, false imprisonment and possession of a firearm. Part of the prosecution evidence against the defendants had been obtained by convert recordings of their conversations in a police van transporting them to and from a police station for interview. The defendants contended that that surveillance evidence should not have been admitted into evidence to the extent that the convictions had been unsafe. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the appeals, stated that the surveillance evidence had been properly admitted and that there had been other evidence that had been sufficiently strong so that there was no reasonable doubt about the safety of the convictions.