At a time when confiscation orders are on the rise, those who have read the case of R -v- Varma (2012) UKSC 42 would have done so with interest.
To summarise, Varma entered pleas of guilty to be knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of tobacco and was sentenced to a conditional discharge for two years. The Court made a confiscation order and an application was submitted for leave against the imposition of that order.
It was argued that it was inappropriate to punish a defendant by imposing a confiscation order where a conditional discharge had been imposed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, however, in quashing the confiscation order they certified that there was a point of law of general public importance and the matter was referred to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision by the Court of Appeal and decided that the Crown Court has the power, and often the duty, to make a confiscation order against a defendant following conviction for an offence, regardless of what sentence had been imposed.
This case is of some significance, particularly for those lesser offences where the Court may be minded to impose discharges as opposed to financial or other penalties. In such cases defendants must be aware of the financial repercussions of pleading guilty to any offences regardless of what sentence is then handed down.
Clearly, advice is necessary and desirable to defendants at an early stage of proceedings as to the likely range of penalties, including financial orders, that the courts may impose.
We at Lewis Nedas are able to offer a comprehensive advice service as to the whole range of confiscation orders that can be made by courts following conviction or a plea of guilty, in addition to advice on cases where the Police and/or prosecuting authorities invoke civil proceedings for the seizure of monies where criminal proceedings are deemed inappropriate or, for whatever reason, cannot be undertaken.
Whilst, on the face of it, the case of Varma is unlikely to trouble too many defendants, what is clear is that the courts are duty bound to consider confiscation orders and/or other financial orders in all criminal cases where a conviction is obtained. That was not the case until this ruling.
