As of August 2025, the CCRC had referred 13 confiscation orders to the appeal courts.
Nine of these appeals had been successful whilst four had been upheld.
Confiscation orders and the CCRC
A confiscation order, as defined by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), is an order “made against a convicted defendant ordering them to pay the amount of their benefit from crime”.
A confiscation order is different to a forfeiture order, which is directed towards a particular asset. It is also different to a costs order, which requires a defendant to pay an amount towards the costs of prosecuting the case against them.
The principle of a confiscation order is to deprive defendants of any benefit they have obtained from crime, and the prosecutor can take steps to preserve assets so that they are available to pay the order.
The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1995, give the Crown Court the power to make confiscation orders. The Magistrates’ Court also has limited power to make confiscation orders.
Sometimes, however, a confiscation order may have been incorrectly imposed or there may have been an error in the calculation of a confiscation order. The CCRC can investigate if a defendant thinks that either of these applies in their case.
Wrongly imposed confiscation orders
In some instances, the CCRC has found that a confiscation order was wrongly imposed because the applicant did not benefit from their criminal conduct within the meaning of the relevant legislation.
For example, in November 2004 John Rowbotham was convicted of fraudulent evasion of duty on tobacco. As well as a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, Mr Rowbotham received a confiscation order of £249,252 with three years’ imprisonment in default of payment.
Following an application to the CCRC, an investigation found that under the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001, Mr Rowbotham was not a person who was liable to pay excise duty. He had not derived any monetary benefit by evading or deferring payment on that duty within the meaning of section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Consequently, there was a real possibility the Court of Appeal would find that the confiscation order had been imposed in error. The CCRC referred the case, and the confiscation was later quashed by the Court.
Another example is the case of Tony Moses who was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition or restriction on the importation of a Class A drug. Mr Moses received a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment and a confiscation order of £1,846.45 with 28 days’ imprisonment in default.
Mr Moses had been found carrying cocaine with a value of £57,000, as well as £1,400 and $1,000 in cash when he was stopped at Heathrow Airport. He entered a guilty plea to the charges.
A confiscation order was sought and Mr Moses’ benefit was recorded as the value of both the drugs and the cash. Mr Moses was advised that this was unavoidable despite arguing that the cash had no connection with the drugs.
Following a review, the CCRC concluded that the purchase value of the drugs should not have been included in the benefit calculation, that the cash was unconnected to the drugs and therefore did not constitute benefit, and that no confiscation order should have been made. The CCRC referred the order, and the Court of Appeal quashed it.
Miscalculation
In other instances, whilst a confiscation order may have been appropriately made, there have been errors in calculating the correct amount the defendant had to pay.
In Tracey Newell’s case, Southwark Council admitted that there had been procedural errors which resulted in a miscalculation of the confiscation order following their prosecution of Ms Newell for failing to give notification of a change in circumstances affecting an entitlement to benefit.
The CCRC’s review found that the benefit figure put forward for calculating the confiscation order was £14,412.65 greater than it should have been. The CCRC referred the confiscation order in August 2019, and it was corrected by the Court of Appeal in February 2020.
In David Hackett’s case, Mr Hackett had pleaded guilty to two counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of duty chargeable on goods. In addition to a custodial sentence, he was ordered to pay a confiscation order in the amount of £645,050 with four years’ imprisonment in default.
The CCRC decided to refer Mr Hackett’s sentence to the Court of Appeal because a review concluded that there was a real possibility the Court would find that the assumptions contained within section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 should have been disapplied in relation to a property which had been owned by a member of Mr Hackett’s family.
The CCRC referred the confiscation order in November 2012 and the Court of Appeal reduced it in June 2013.
If you think your confiscation order has been either incorrectly imposed or miscalculated you can apply to the CCRC for a review of your case.