House of Lords

Published May 19, 2008

Jennings v Crown Prosecution Service

Before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Speeches May 14, 2008

Confiscation orders, or restraint of property orders pending the making of such orders, were to be made in respect of property which the person had actually obtained, not that he had merely helped others to obtain.

The House of Lords so held in dismissing an appeal by Paul Ian Jennings, from the order of the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Lloyd) (The Times July 12, 2005; [2006] 1 WLR 182) upholding the refusal by Mr Justice Leveson ([2004] EWHC 3028 (Admin)) to set aside a restraint order made against him under section 77(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Mr Anthony Elleray, QC and Mr Scott Redpath for Jennings; Mr Andrew Mitchell, QC and Mr Stephen Hellman for the Crown.

LORD BINGHAM, delivering the opinion of the committee, said that Lord Justice Laws had said (paragraph 38), that “obtains” in section 71(4) of the 1988 Act meant that the defendant “should have contributed, to a nontrivial ... extent, to the getting of the property."

However, as explained in R v May (The Times May 15, 2008), the object of the legislation was to deprive the defendant of the product of his crime, not to operate by way of fine. He was not to be deprived of what he had never obtained.

The formulation of Lord Justice Laws was not entirely accurate. Section 71(4) had to be read as meaning “obtained by him”. However, there had clearly been sufficient material to support the making of a restraint order against the defendant.

Solicitors: Hanman Associates, Manchester; Crown Prosecution Service, Special Crime Division.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure