ACCOMPLISHING HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSETS CONFISCATION: AN EVALUATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM DRUG LAWS ENFORCEMENT
Abstract
It is estimated that crude oil, tourism and illicit drug trade are among the top five most financially inducing business in the world. Drug cartels conducts sophisticated and well organised activities including money laundering and monitoring of large networks of their couriers. In past the decade, the United Kingdom has incurred large expenditure on the treatment of drug related illnesses and, on the enforcement of drug control laws. Several drug laws are enacted to dealing with the waves of illicit drugs in the country. There is controversy over the ways by which the properties of the drug traffickers and suspected drug dealer, are seized by the State; in order to seize anyone’s private property prior to commencement of legal proceedings to effect permanent forfeiture, the law enforcement agencies are only required to show ‘probable cause’ that the property being seized is acquired with the profit of drug crime alternatively, that the property facilitates drug criminal activities. Using data from academic materials and United Kingdom case laws, the paper argues that the United Kingdom drug trafficking laws particularly the enforcement of ‘civil asset recovery’ under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and, the ‘Criminal confiscation’ under the Drug trafficking Act 1994 violates the International Human Rights Laws.References
[2] Burgess, R. 2003. Disrupting crack markets: A practice Guide; Drug Strategy Directorate (DSD), Home Office, London.
[3] Dorn, N. (ed). 1999. Regulating European Drug Problems: Administrative Measures and Civil Law in the Control of Drug Trafficking, Nuisance and Use, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
[4] Dorn, N. 2004. UK Policing Of Drug Traffickers And Users: Policy Implementation In The Contexts Of National Law, European Traditions, International Drug Coventions, And Security After 2001; Journal of Drug Issues, Summer.
[5] Guardian Newspaper. 2005. Revealed: How Drugs War Failed, July 5.
[6] Green, P. (ed). 1996. Drug Couriers A New Perspective, The Howard League Handbooks. Quartet Books.
[7] Green, P., Mills, C., and Read, T. 1994. The Characteristics and sentencing of illegal drug importers; Britt. J. Criminal. 34 (4): 479-486.
[8] Hammond, N.1994. The Value of Pre-sentence Reports on Foreign Nationals, Middlesex Probation Service: Cropwood Fellowship, University of Cambridge.
[9] Hammond, N. 1995. PSRs on Foreign Drugs Traffickers: Present and Future, Probation Journal: 17-23, March.
[10] Hammond, N. 1996. Turning the Clock Back: The implication for Pre-Sentence Reports of the criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in Green P (ed). Drug Couriers: A New Perspective, The Howard League Handbooks. Quartet Books.
[11] Henham, R. 1994. Criminal Justice and Sentencing Policy for Drug Offenders; 22, International Journal of the Sociology of Law 223: 225.
[12] Home Office. 1989. Drug Trafficking and Serious Crime, Volume 1, House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee, Seventh Report, 8 November.
[13] Home Office. 2004. The Drug Treatment and Testing Order: Early lessons, A Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 366 Session 2003-2004: 26 March.
[14] Kingston, K. 2006. (Unpub) An Analytical Assessment of the United Kingdom Drug Trafficking Laws, A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Master of Laws (LLM) degree at the School of Law, University of East London, England, September.
[15] Lea, J. 2004. Hitting Criminals Where It Hurts: Organised crime and the erosion of due process, Cambrian Law Review (30): 81-96.
[16] Liberty. 2001. (National Council for Civil Liberties), Proceeds of Crime: Consultation on Draft Legislation; May.
[17] Roe, S. 2005. Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey England and Wales, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, October.
[18] Runciman, Viscountess .1999. Drugs and The Law, Report of the Independent Inquiry Into The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Police Foundation document, Home Office, London.
[19] Tarzi A, and Hedges J. 1990. A study of Foreign Nationals: A prison within a prison, Inner London Probation Service.
[20] Tiggey, M., Harocopos, A., Turnbull, P. J., and Hough, M. 2000. Serving Up: The impacts of low-level Police Enforcement on Drugs Market, Police Research Series Paper 133, November. Online at http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/prs133.pdf [accessed 1/7/06 and 9/11/2010].
[21] Willoughby, D. 1988. Cocaine, Opium, Marijuana: Global Problems, Global Response, New York: USIS, (1): 1-17.
Cases
Allenet de Ribemont v France A 308 (1995) 20 EHRR 557.
Brown v HM Advocate [1966] SLT 105.
de Freitas v Ministry of Agriculture [1998] 3 WLR 675.
Matthews v UK [1999] ECHR 24833/94.
R v Aramah [1982] 4 Cr. App R (S) 407.
R v Belinski (1987) 9 Cr App R (S) 360.
R v Dickens (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 191.
R v Winters [2008] WLR (D) 387.
R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103.
R v Briggs-Price [2009] UKHL 19.
R v Aroyewuni [1994] Crim. LR 695.
R v Gallagher (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 224.
R v Jones (1981) 3 Cr App R (S) 51.
R v Lambert and others [2001] 2 WLR 211.
R v Michael Tivnan [1998] EWCA Crim 1370.
R v Montila and others [2003] EWCA Crim 3082.
Teixera de Castro v Portugal 28 EHRR 101.
United States v. La Vengeance 3 Dallas 297 (1796).
Van Mechelen v Netherlands 25 EHRR 647.
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, 48.
Keywords
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.