Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office v Taylor

Section 77(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 gives a magistrates’ court power to postpone issuing a warrant of commitment for a confiscation default term, including until the expiry of imprisonment imposed for a different offence. Section 6 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 governs when the default term begins after a warrant has been issued. It does not restrict the magistrates’ jurisdiction to issue or postpone the warrant. Exercising the power does not vary the Crown Court’s confiscation order. The power remains discretionary and must be exercised consistently with the defendant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention.

The Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office appealed by way of case stated from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court’s decision of 21 July 2009. The Crown Court had made a confiscation order against George Taylor under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and fixed a term of imprisonment in default of payment. Mr Taylor was later sentenced to imprisonment for a separate offence.

The magistrates’ court refused an application to postpone issuing the warrant of commitment until the later sentence expired. The central issue was whether section 77(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 permitted such postponement, notwithstanding section 6(2) of the 1986 Act.

1. Appeal allowed. The question stated was answered affirmatively. The magistrates’ court had jurisdiction under section 77(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to postpone issuing the warrant until after the custodial part of the defendant’s current sentence, which related to a different offence.
2. Section 77(2) contains no express limitation linking postponement to the sentence imposed for the offence giving rise to the confiscation order. Any such restriction would therefore have to arise from another enactment.
3. Section 6(2) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 provides that, once a warrant has been issued, the default term does not begin until after the term of custody imposed for the offence connected with the confiscation order. It prevents the default term from being rendered futile by concurrent service. It does not regulate the magistrates’ power to issue the warrant in the first place.
4. The power under section 77(2) is not confined to cases where the magistrates’ court itself fixed the term of imprisonment. Enforcement of a Crown Court confiscation order through sections 76 and 77 does not vary or interfere with the Crown Court’s order.
5. The court retained a discretion. Adjourning the application indefinitely could raise Article 6 concerns, because delay in enforcement may infringe the defendant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Whether postponement was appropriate in Mr Taylor’s case remained for the magistrates’ court to determine.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court was allowed. The jurisdictional question was answered affirmatively.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 21 July 2009, the court refused the application to postpone issuing the warrant on jurisdictional grounds.