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.

[2012] UKSC 42

Whilst the decision in R. v Clarke (Joseph) [2009] EWCA Crim 1074, [2010] 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.

[2010] 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.

[2009] 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.

[2005] 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.

[2003] 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.

[2001] 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.