Key Facts
- •Applicant convicted of serious sexual offences involving children, including rapes.
- •Deprivation order made under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 for seized computers, hard drives, and cameras.
- •Applicant seeks to quash and remake the order, arguing some items were unrelated to the offences.
- •Significant delay (over three years) in bringing the application.
- •Seven items remain in dispute, including hard drives with illegal material and other items potentially containing lawful material.
Legal Principles
A deprivation order under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 requires that the property was used for, or intended to be used for, committing or facilitating offences.
Section 143, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
When considering a deprivation order, the court must consider the property's value and its financial and other effects on the offender.
Section 143(5), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
Proportionality is a relevant factor when considering a deprivation order, and the order's effect should be considered alongside the overall sentence.
R v Wright-Hadley [2022] EWCA Crim 446
The prosecution bears the burden of proving the basis for a deprivation order to the criminal standard.
R v Wright-Hadley [2022] EWCA Crim 446
A deprivation order should not be limited to unlawful material on devices; however, a period might be allowed for removal of lawful material before the order takes effect.
R v Tan [2024] EWCA Crim 1104
Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 prevents amendments to orders if an appeal is successful.
Section 11(3), Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Outcomes
Applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence refused.
The court found no merit in the grounds of appeal. The applicant failed to raise concerns about the scope of the order at the sentencing hearing. The delay in bringing the application was unjustified. The police's actions in attempting to return lawful material, while not perfect, were not grounds for appeal; any further issues regarding returned items should be addressed in civil courts.