tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post637190917814657386..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Court of Appeal cuts scope of POCA confiscation ordersMartin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-60745188325433106922019-04-06T10:25:12.176+01:002019-04-06T10:25:12.176+01:00I am inclined to think that Richard W is right, an...I am inclined to think that Richard W is right, and this would certainly have been my view before <i>Panayi</i>, but this latest judgment appears on the face of it to have thrown some doubt on this. One would have to read the judgment more closely to see whether the CA really did mean that continuation of an offence for six months is not enough in itself to amount to a ‘criminal lifestyle’, which does not appear to me to reflect the literal meaning of the legislative wording in POCA . (Maybe I was reading too much into their lordships’ words?)Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-16853011855899961182019-04-05T10:03:09.938+01:002019-04-05T10:03:09.938+01:00All good fun.
I wonder Martin whether there is a ...All good fun.<br /><br />I wonder Martin whether there is a connection (explicit or implicit) between the drafting error that led to a one day offence and the conclusions on 'criminal lifestyle'. If you put the two points together does that not imply that provided the original prosecution covers a period of at least six months' breach then the criminal lifestyle test is probably met?<br />(And I doubt many LPAs would often prosecute a breach of enforcement notice in less than six months.)RichardWnoreply@blogger.com