BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Adam & Anor, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 865 (01 April 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/865.html
Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 865

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Crim 865
2009/2246C5 – 200902576C5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT DERBY
HHJ BURGESS
T20050185-6 & T20050186-5

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
01/04/2011

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE HOOPER
MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
and
MR JUSTICE SWEENEY
____________________

Between:
Maqbul Adam & Altaf Umarji
 Appellants
- and -
The Crown
 Respondent

____________________

Mr Joseph Ganner appeared for the Appellants.
Mr Andrew Bird appeared for the Respondent.
Date of decision: 20th January 2011
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    LORD JUSTICE HOOPER :

  1. On 20th January 2011 the Full Court granted the appellants an extension of time and leave to appeal against their confiscation orders.

  2. The Court adjourned the hearing of the appeal to a date to be fixed and directed that the appellants and respondent complete service of further submissions by 3rd March 2011.

  3. The respondent now accepts that the appeals should be allowed to the extent of quashing the original confiscation orders.

  4. Both parties are content for us to resolve the appeal without an oral hearing.

  5. The Crown contends and the appellants concede that a substituted confiscation order should be imposed in respect of the appellants in the following terms:

    6. i) A finding that each appellant benefited in the sum of £16,250 (the value of the cigarettes and VAT);

    ii) A confiscation order be made against each appellant in that same sum.

  6. We agree.

  7. There is some disagreement about the period in default and the period after which the payment must be made.

  8. In our view the order which should be made is:

    9. i) A period of 9 months imprisonment be imposed in default;

    ii) That payment of the order be made within 6 months.

  9. The Court accordingly quashes the existing confiscation orders and substitutes an order against each appellant in these four terms.

  10. The Court is grateful for help from both counsel and the Criminal Appeal Office in the resolution of these appeals.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/865.html