We represented a client in proceedings where the prosecution applied to invoke the “slip rule” under section 385 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The application sought to pursue confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) 53 days after sentence. Following a contested hearing at Canterbury Crown Court, the application was refused.
Background
Our client, Mr G, had already been sentenced when the Crown applied to reopen concluded proceedings to pursue confiscation proceedings under POCA. The prosecution sought to rely on the “slip rule” to permit a late POCA confiscation application.
Defence Case
We prepared detailed written and oral submissions opposing the Crown’s application at a three-hour hearing. We relied on the leading authority of R v Haden [2024] 1 WLR, arguing that:
- The slip rule is designed to correct errors, not to facilitate late strategic reconsideration;
- The Crown’s failure to initiate POCA proceedings at sentence was a deliberate and informed decision;
- Reopening the case would cause clear prejudice and undermine the principle of finality.
The Court’s Findings
The court confirmed that although jurisdiction existed under section 385 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the power was discretionary and narrow in scope. The court also emphasised that it is intended primarily to correct mistakes or inadvertent errors. The judgment confirmed that the court should only exercise its discretion where:
- There is a good and sufficient reason;
- There are reasonable grounds to expect a meaningful confiscation outcome;
- There is no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant.
In this case, the judge found that the prosecution’s failure to pursue confiscation proceedings had not been an oversight, but a deliberate decision made at the time of sentence. This finding was key in refusing the Crown’s application.
In Mr G’s case, the court determined that:
- His involvement was limited to a single incident;
- There was no evidence of significant criminal benefit or realisable assets;
- Other comparable defendants had not faced confiscation proceedings.
The judge concluded there was no meaningful distinction warranting different treatment. The court also placed substantial weight on the potential prejudice, including the risk of delayed repatriation, additional time in custody and extended uncertainty following conclusion of the case.
Importantly, the court observed that the prosecution would still retain the ability to proceed under section 19 POCA should fresh evidence emerge in the future.
Outcome
The Crown Court refused the prosecution’s application to invoke the slip rule and declined to reopen the proceedings for confiscation purposes. The court stated: “The purpose of the slip rule is primarily… to rectify mistakes… not to give the prosecution 56 days to change their mind.”
The judge concluded that invoking the slip rule in these circumstances would be unjustified, unnecessary and unfair.
This ruling provides important clarification on the limits of the slip rule and reinforces that:
- Confiscation proceedings must be addressed at the time of sentencing;
- The Crown cannot rely on post-sentence mechanisms to correct strategic decisions;
- Courts will prioritise finality, fairness, and proportionality.
Our client was represented by Partner, Barrister and Head of Crown Court Advocacy, Ronnie Manek.
Comment
Following the ruling, Ronnie Manek commented: “This decision reaffirms that the slip rule cannot be used as a fallback for missed opportunities. Where the Crown makes a conscious decision not to pursue confiscation at sentence, it cannot later seek to reopen proceedings simply because it has reconsidered its position.’’
