QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES
|CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE||Respondent|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Sonal Dashani (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"I noted that the role of the Magistrates' Court in the enforcement of confiscation orders was to enforce the order in the terms made by the Crown Court. It had no power to vary or alter the terms of the order. I considered that if complaint were made about any of the terms of the Crown Court order then the appropriate course of action for Mr Zykin was to institute proceedings in a higher court, which he had not done. I also considered that the application for me to re-open a colleague's decision was an invitation for one magistrates' bench to sit as a 'Court of Appeal' on the decision of another. For these reasons, I declined to re-open the adjudication of 9th September."
"A Magistrates' Court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so; and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make."
"It was generally and correctly to be regarded as a slip rule and the power under the section could not be extended to cover situations beyond those akin to a mistake."
"30. That case indicates that the power under section 142 is to be used in a relatively limited situation, namely one which is akin to mistake or, as the court says, the slip rule. But there is no reason, on the face of it, to limit it further. It seems to me that if a court has been misled into imposing a particular sentence, and it is discovered that it has been so misled, then the sentence may properly be said to have been imposed because of a mistake; the mistake being the failure of the court to appreciate a relevant fact. That may well give power to the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by section 142, but it does not indicate that that power should necessarily be used."