A call for the abolition of the current CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS and Proceeds of Crime Act

Aug. 8, 2010 - PRLog -- The law regarding confiscation was developed perfectly laudably on the basis that no criminal should be able to reap the financial benefits of crime. This is an Act which is more manifestly unjust than any other Act of Parliament passed in recent years?

One of the intrinsic problems arises from the principle of the "double Whammy." Not only is a person now punished once for a crime, but he can be punished severely twice for the same offence.

It is essentialy the issue of Benefit which again goes to the root of the dilemma. It is how benefit is assessed under the current law that is so manifestly unjust.

Take a person of previous good character who is now convicted of a particular financial offence. The Court is bound to make as assumption that he has been lliving a "criminal lifestyle" for the last six years. As a direct consequence of this, all of his income and capital are placed firmly at risk. It is true that a Defendant can rebut an assumption where for examplle the only crime that he has ever committed is the one with which he has just been convicted. The fact is that an innocent person may not in good faith be able to rebut the assumption. However honest historically, the Defendant in question may not be able to find supporting witnesses. He may not have perfect records going back six years. There may be good sources of information which are capable of helping the defendant but people run scared not wanting to get involved, afraid that they may be arrested as well. This is the real world which because of a draconian Act puts defendants in an unenviable position.

Once vagain, the sityuation is that a Defendant recentlly convicted must go back before the same Judge and reassure him that he has previously been living an honourable life. In theory it sounds possible or even easy. In practice, it can be and often is horrendously difficult and distressing following a trial and a conviction.

The reality is that a Defendant convicted of sauch an offence attuning his mind to a term in prison, perhaps for trhe first time, has to now contemplate further proceedings hanging over him as a result of which the shirt will be taken off his back. It sounds and is too onerous in many cases. It is fair and proper that a criminal should be punished and society compensated but not in such a manner that anyone is indiscriminately punished not just for a crime but for his record keeping over the course of the previous six years.

Unfairness also arises from the fact that the Croen are able to rely upon evidence in the Confiscation Proceedings that would be obviously inadmissible in the criminal proceedings themselves. Reliance can be placed for examplle upon what ba Co-Defendant said in interview when the Defendant himself was not present. Even hearsay from an informant is admissible. This is shameful and does not go anywhere near the standards of Bristish Justice we are accustomed to believe we adhere to.

THe Act does not also alow for Judicial discretion. The rule is the rule and that is it. This is dissimilar from sentencing folllowing conviction where all mitigating matters can properly be taken into account.

So picture a guy who has done wrong and been convicted for the first time. He is sentenced to a lengthy period in prison. All his papers are removed or not with him, and in a state of real depression, he has to rebut presumptions going back six years.

The result is very worrying. Collection of frunds from criminals is a potential vote winner as it sounds right in principle. The practice is thar  people who have done wrong are stripped of everything in very unfair circumstances and are given no chance to truly make a fresh start. The Prosecution attack the the Defendant is often powerless inan environment more akin to a bailiff's office than a couret of law.

The fact is that on many occasions the Act is far too onerous and the assumptions too indiscrimate to achieve any form of real justice. POCA needs to go and its replacement needs to have justice as its true objective. At the present time, it is a witch hunt but often with a Defendant blindfolded and powerless.