Where the criteria in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.6 were satisfied, the Crown Court had, subject to s.6(6), a duty to make a confiscation order against a defendant following conviction for an offence, even where he or she received an absolute or conditional discharge. UKSC 42
Whilst the decision in R. v Clarke (Joseph)  EWCA Crim 1074,  1 W.L.R. 223 was doubted, the court was bound by the decision and had to allow an appeal against a confiscation order made following the imposition of a conditional discharge. The court certified a point of law and invited the Crown to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. EWCA Crim 1575
The Crown Court had no power to make a confiscation order against an offender that had been convicted of an offence and had received a conditional or absolute discharge under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.12. EWCA Crim 1074
The absolute discharge of a mentally-impaired defendant following convictions for indecent assault committed many years in the past was unduly lenient in that it failed sufficiently to take into account the interests of the victims. EWCA Crim 246
The procedure laid down by s.4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 was compatible with the rights of an accused person under Art.6 European Convention on Human Rights. UKHL 1
Penalties imposed by the Kennel Club on a breeder convicted under s.1(1)(b) Protection of Animals Act 1911 were disproportionate. However, the disciplinary committee was entitled to impose a ban that lasted beyond the date at which the conviction became spent.
Section 1 Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 was not incompatible with Art.5(1)(e) European Convention on Human Rights in that the continued detention of restricted patients in a hospital on grounds of public safety was not dependent on their condition being capable of treatment. The Act was therefore not beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. UKPC D 5
A judge’s summing up in a defendant’s trial for possession of drugs with intent to supply was seriously flawed by his reference to a character who had never been mentioned before in the course of the case as a posssibility for the jury to consider, and by his failure to deal with inconsistencies in a police officer’s evidence as to the statutory basis of his search of the defendant. The conviction was rendered unsafe and was quashed.