Reported today that judge has ordered the forfeit to the crown of a woman's BMW 318. She was caught driving with excess alcohol inbibed, and banned for a year. Shortly afterwards, she was caught again having excessively imbibed, and also driving whilst disqualified.
{ P.S., No, you can't borrow our judges. We need them here.}
|
|
How utterly appropriate, sensible & commensurate. Seeing as your judges report to the same 'crown' - surely we can borrow just one or two during the close season?
|
Can't have judges like that with common sense here. They'd never fit in with the others down at the lodge ;-)
|
there are plenty of offences that your car could be forfeited...but it does seem fairly rare here
maybe the Human Rights Act has had something to do with it....it would depend on whether the forfeiture was considered 'proportionate' presumably
it would get my vote, no problem
|
|
|
|
{ P.S. No you can't borrow our judges. We need them here.}
Well, Gary, if we can't borrow your judges I expect you would like to borrow some rugby players from say; South Africa!
; - ))
Edited by drbe on 06/08/2009 at 08:28
|
There are powers for courts in this country to forfeit a possession - in this case a car - when it's been used in the commission of a crime.
I've seen a burglar have his getaway vehicle confiscated, but it needs to be 'in the case'.
So, burglar burgles house, jumps in car, chased by police, crashes car. Gets done for burglary, dangerous drive and has car confiscated.
Burglar burgles same house, but not caught until a month later. No one knows/cares/can prove how he left the scene - car not confiscated.
|
As you will see, it can easily be applied to drink/driving cases:
Sections143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 allows the courts to order the forfeiture by a convicted person of property used. It states:-
143(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court by or before which he is convicted is satisfied that any property which has been lawfully seized from him, or which was in his possession or under his control at the time when he was apprehended for the offence or when a summons in respect of it was issued-
(a) has been used for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, any offence, or
(b) was intended by him to for that purpose,
the court may (subject to subsection (5) below) make an order under this section in respect of that property.
143(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the offence, or an offence which the court has taken into consideration in determining his sentence, consists of unlawful possession of property which-
(a) has been lawfully seized from him, or
(b) was in his possession or under his control at the time when he was apprehended for the offence of which he has been convicted or when a summons in respect of that offence was issued,
the court may (subject to subsection (5) below) make an order under this section in respect of that property.
143 (3) An order under this section shall operate to deprive the offender of his rights, if any, in the property to which it relates, and the property shall (if not already in their possession) be taken into the possession of the police.
NOTE:
An intention to use for the purposes of crime, or is in the unlawful possession of the defendant will suffice and includes the forfeiture of any vehicle used to commit serious traffic offences.
143(4) Any power conferred on a court by subsection (1) or (2) above may be exercised-
(a) whether or not the court also deals with the offender in any other way in respect of the offence of which he has been convicted; and
(b) without regard to any restrictions on forfeiture in any enactment contained in an Act passed before 29th July 1988.
143(5) In considering whether to make an order under this section in respect of any property, a court shall have regard-
(a) to the value of the property; and
(b) to the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making).
143(6) Where a person commits an offence to which this subsection applies by-
(a) driving, attempting to drive, or being in charge of a vehicle, or
(b) failing to comply with a requirement made under section 7 or 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (failure to provide specimen for analysis or laboratory test or to give permission for such a test) in the course of an investigation into whether the offender had committed an offence while driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a vehicle, or
(c) failing, as the driver of a vehicle, to comply with subsection (2) or (3) of section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (duty to stop and give information or report accident),
the vehicle shall be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1) above (and section 144(1)(b) as used for the purpose of committing the offence (and for the purpose of committing any offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offence).
143(7) Subsection (6) above applies to
a) an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is punishable with imprisonment;
(b) an offence of manslaughter; and
(c) an offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wanton and furious driving).
143(8) Facilitating the commission of an offence shall be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) above to include the taking of any steps after it has been committed for the purpose of disposing of any property to which it relates or of avoiding apprehension or detection.
NOTE:
In a case where there were three defendants, one had his Land Rover seized (as well as being given 12 months probation just like the others). He appealed on the grounds that his punishment was much greater than that for the other two. The Court of Appeal stated that although there must not be an unacceptable disparity in the sentences, that did not exclude seizure from one defendant where there was a joint venture (R v Burgess Times 2/11/00). Note that this case was based on the older (but identical) legislation which preceded section 143.
SOURCE(S) Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
RELATED MATERIAL 143 Forfeiture of proceeds of crime
RELATED CASES Webb v CC Merseyside and Potter v CC of Merseyside 1999
If no legal authority police must usually return property
|
|
|
|
![2018 BMW 2 Series Convertible M240i 2dr [Nav] Step Auto](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/e4e478ed3b7c58536854ea2840ff48d4/e2df51713996ac53b280005cca7735ea.jpg)
