Regina v Knights and another (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

HOUSE OF LORDS

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

Regina v. Knights and another (Appellants) (On Appeal from the

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

[2005] UKHL 50

LORD STEYN

My Lords,

1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinion of my noble and

learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I agree with it. I
would also make the order which Lord Brown proposes.

LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY

My Lords,

2. I have had the advantage of reading the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, in draft. For the reasons which he gives, I too would answer the certified question in the negative and dismiss the appeal.

LORD CULLEN OF WHITEKIRK

My Lords,

3. I have had the advantage of reading the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, in draft. For the reasons which he gives, I too would answer the certified question in the negative and dismiss the appeal.

LORD CARSWELL

My Lords,

4. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I agree with his reasons and conclusions and I too would dismiss the appeal.

LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD

My Lords,

5. This appeal was conjoined with and heard by your Lordships immediately following that in R v Soneji and Bullen ([2005] UKHL 49). Both concern the making of confiscation orders pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as amended (the legislation in force prior to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002). Both raise broadly similar questions as to the need for strict adherence to the requirements of the legislation as a precondition of the court’s power to make compensation orders. Does non-compliance with the strict requirements of the legislation disable the court from making such orders?

6. Everything which I wish to say generally with regard to these questions I have said in my opinion in the other appeal and I understand your Lordships to have followed the same course. That being so I propose to deal comparatively briefly with the present case, setting out the facts as shortly as may be, identifying the particular questions they raise and then applying to them the approach indicated in the other appeal. The legislation itself is fully set out in the other appeal (and more fully still in the judgment of the court below in the present case— reported under the title R v Sekhon [2003] 1 WLR 1655) and I shall accordingly set out only those very few provisions which lie at the centre of the argument.

7. In the summer months of 2000 these two appellants and four other men stood trial at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court upon a charge of being knowingly concerned in dealing with goods which were chargeable with duty which had not been paid, with intent to defraud, contrary to section 170(1)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Six separate…