Legal Practice Notes

What are special reasons in driving sentencing? Special reasons are a class of mitigating submissions that may: prevent a defendant from being disqualified from driving, or reduce the period of any disqualification; or prevent a defendant from receiving a penalty points endorsement Such arguments are put forward after a conviction or following a guilty plea to driving offences. While the phrase ‘special reasons’ draws its authority from section 34(1) (disqualification) and section 44(2) (endorsement) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ( RTOA 1988), there is no statutory definition. Case law, however, provides assistance. A special reason is a mitigating or extenuating factor which does not amount in law to a defence to the allegation, is directly linked to the commission of the offence, and is one the court ought properly to take into account when passing sentence. A matter personal to the...

This Practice Note offers an overview of the Sentencing Council’s General Guideline—overarching principles (the General guideline). It should be considered alongside offence-specific sentencing guidelines and other overarching guidance covering, for example, community and custodial sentences, offences taken into consideration, totality, and reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. For more on sentencing practice, the Sentencing Council’s functions, and its definitive guidelines, see Practice Note: Sentences imposed following conviction. For details of the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for use in the magistrates’ court (commonly known as the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines or MCSG) and offence-specific guidelines (formerly described as definitive guidelines) for use by Crown Courts in England and Wales, see Practice Note: Sentencing criminal offences—sentencing guidelines and resources. The General guideline—application The General guideline applies to all individual offenders aged 18 or over and to organisations sentenced after 1 October 2019, regardless of when the offence took...

This Practice Note summarises the confiscation regime set out in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ( POCA 2002), together with the changes introduced by Schedule 8 to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ( ECCTA 2023), insofar as it operates in Scotland. Schedule 8 amended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2022 to make provisions in connection with cryptoassets and confiscation orders. Those amendments have not yet been brought into force. Introduction to Scottish confiscation law and procedure Confiscation is the mechanism by which, after conviction, an offender’s financial gain from offending is taken away. The POCA 2002 confiscation provisions are designed to facilitate the recovery and seizure of the proceeds of crime in order to: disincentivise criminal activity, and prevent offenders from retaining the proceeds of crime following conviction This Practice Note addresses the Scottish confiscation process and...

The Online Safety Act 2023 ( OSA 2023) was brought in to tackle a range of recognised online harms, notably reforming the offence dealing with intimate image abuse and confronting the transmission of unsolicited sexual imagery. For further details on the OSA 2023, see Practice Note: Offences under the Online Safety Act 2023. OSA 2023, s 188 adds a provision to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ( SOA 2003) which, from 31 January 2024, makes it a crime to share or threaten to share intimate photographs or films without consent. This offence is commonly called ‘revenge porn’ and replaces the previous offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 ( CJCA 2015). CJCA 2015, s 33 was repealed on 31 January 2024, but any offences...

What is a restraint order? A restraint order is a preventive step taken to back up any confiscation order that might be, or has already been, imposed. It is a statutory device, set out in section 40 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ( POCA 2002). Under POCA 2002, s 40 (which provides for restraint orders), an investigator or prosecutor is afforded the pre-emptive power to restrict a person's assets where that person is suspected of, or being investigated for, an acquisitive offence, and even before any arrest on the alleged offence. A restraint order made pursuant to POCA 2002 also operates to freeze both identified and yet-to-be identified property so as to preserve assets regarded as necessary to satisfy a confiscation order following prosecution and conviction (see below: Legislative steer under POCA 2002, s 69). The order expressly bars any...

You may owe a regulatory or professional obligation to preserve the confidentiality of your customers’ affairs, and the situations in which you are permitted to reveal details about a customer can be highly restricted. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ( POCA 2002) creates a duty to report knowledge or suspicions of money laundering by submitting a suspicious activity report ( SAR). Significant criminal penalties apply if you fail to comply. The Terrorism Act 2000 ( TA 2000) also imposes a disclosure requirement where you know or suspect that another person has committed, or is about to commit, a principal terrorist property offence. Counter-proliferation financing is the newest component within the long-standing anti-money laundering ( AML) and counter-terrorist financing ( CTF) framework. Obligations concerning counter-proliferation financing were brought into the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (...

This Practice Note outlines the reporting duties arising under key UK sanctions frameworks and other reporting requirements linked to sanctions compliance. These cover obligations in regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti- Money Laundering Act 2018 ( SAMLA 2018), conditions attached to licences, other sanctions regimes, professional reporting duties and additional reporting requirements... Financial sanctions mandatory reporting obligations in regulations made under SAMLA 2018 Financial sanctions reporting duties are contained in the specific sanctions regulations issued under SAMLA 2018. These generally apply to ‘relevant firms’ as defined in the relevant statutory instrument. Obligations can extend beyond those entities, so you should review the applicable legislation for precise requirements, for example: ‘relevant institutions’ face extra reporting duties in relation to frozen accounts there are particular reporting duties for designated persons—see section: Other reporting requirements For information on the sanctions regimes established under SAMLA 2018, see...

Overview Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 ( SCA 1981) sets out the remedies available on an application for judicial review which a court may grant. The list includes the following: quashing orders mandatory orders prohibiting orders declarations damages (including restitution or recovery of a sum due) injunctions/interim remedies Under CPR 54.6, the claimant is required to state, in the claim form, any remedy being sought. By virtue of SCA 1981, s 31(1), the remedies can be claimed in the alternative, or as cumulative options in addition to each other. For further information and discussion, see: Combining prerogative orders: Supperstone, Goudie and Walker on Judicial Review [16.2]. In this context, a conclusion that a judicial review has succeeded is not, as a general rule, sufficient finally to dispose of a claim (see R ( LND1) v The...

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 ( IPA 2016) now provides the core legal structure for the use of covert surveillance by public bodies. Before this, the field was governed mostly—though not wholly—by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ( RIPA 2000). The RIPA 2000 provisions on intercepting and acquiring communications data have been repealed and replaced by IPA 2016. However, the regimes for direct surveillance, covert human intelligence sources ( CHIS), and obtaining electronic data protected by encryption continue to be governed by RIPA 2000. For guidance on interception and the acquisition of communications under IPA 2016, see the following Practice Notes: The regulation of intelligence gathering—an introductory guide Acquisition, retention and disclosure of communications data under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 Interception of communications under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 Equipment interference under the...

This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage. The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged: Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk. Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it. In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the...

Providing false statement to an auditor A company’s directors must produce a report for each financial year, unless the small company exception in section 415A of the Companies Act 2006 ( CA 2006) applies. The report has to set out the information required by CA 2006, sections 415 to 418 inclusive. In relation to providing information to auditors, section 418 CA 2006 obliges the directors’ report to include a statement confirming two points: so far as every director knows, there is no relevant audit information of which the company’s auditor is not aware; and the directors have taken all steps they ought to have taken, in their capacity as directors, to make themselves aware of any relevant audit information and to ensure the company’s auditor is aware of it. All directors in office when the report is approved must make the identical statement. For these...

Under the Insolvency Act 1986 ( IA 1986), a company director commits a criminal offence by making a statutory declaration that a company is solvent without reasonable grounds. The case can be tried in either the magistrates' court or the Crown Court......

False accounting A person who, with a view to gain for themselves or another, or intending to cause loss to someone else, falsifies or conceals information required for an accounting purpose, knowing that such information is misleading, may be committing the offence of false accounting. The offence can be committed in either of two ways: by falsifying documents for an accounting purpose; or by using false or misleading documents for any purpose The elements are established when a person, with a view to gain for themselves or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, either: dishonestly destroys, defaces, conceals, or falsifies any account, record, or document required for any accounting purpose whatsoever; or produces, presents, or makes use of any account, record, or document for any purpose which they know is, or may be, false, misleading, or deceptive in a...

Possessing extreme pornography Mere possession of extreme pornography constitutes an offence under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 ( CJIA 2008). It is prosecuted more frequently than offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, because no act of publication needs to be shown, making it simpler to establish. Refer to Practice Note: Obscene publications. Pornography is distinct from obscenity: material deemed obscene may deprave and corrupt and might be violent or morally offensive; by contrast, the pornography offence focuses on sexual images that are gross or extreme in character. Pictures depicting extreme violence can amount to obscenity, yet they are not pornography unless they possess a sexual context or intent. The provision aims to curb the proliferation of extreme material and applies equally to online and offline contexts, covering both moving and still images, regardless of how they were...

What is extradition? Extradition is the formal legal mechanism by which one territory requests another to hand over a person sought so they can face trial or complete a sentence imposed by the requesting territory. The UK’s statutory framework The UK’s extradition system is governed by the Extradition Act 2003 ( EA 2003). The UK maintains extradition arrangements, under multilateral conventions and bilateral extradition treaties, with more than 120 territories. Under the EA 2003, these territories are designated as either Part 1 or Part 2. Part 1 territories are listed in the Extradition Act 2003 ( Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003, SI 2003/3333, as amended. See further below: Part 1 territories. Notwithstanding the UK’s departure from the EU, this list continues to include the remaining 27 EU Member States. Part 2 territories are identified in the Extradition Act 2003 ( Designation of Part 2...

Introduction Environmental permitting is one of the principal regulatory regimes in the UK. Its purpose is to control pollution and emissions from industrial and other operations. It is a core element of UK business regulation, placing controls on activities that could pollute the environment or harm human health. Permits set conditions for the construction, operation and decommissioning of a regulated facility, and prescribe how regulated activities are undertaken. This Practice Note summarises enforcement procedures, offences and civil sanctions under the Environmental Permitting ( England and Wales) Regulations 2016 ( EPR 2016), SI 2016/1154, which provide a single, unified permitting regime for facilities and activities. For detail on other key aspects of EPR 2016, see Practice Notes: Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016—permit determinations and appeals; and Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016—permits, applications and exemptions. EPR 2016 consolidated and revoked the Environmental Permitting ( England and Wales)...

Stop press: The Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 ( BSAIA 2025) received royal assent on 2 December 2025. The Act introduces a fresh authority permitting searches of electronic devices belonging to any person who has come to or arrived in the UK without leave to enter or remain. For further information and context, see News Analysis: What is changing under the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. This new power took effect on 5 January 2026; refer to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 ( Commencement No 1) Regulations 2025 ( SI 2025/1318). This Practice Note is currently being revised to reflect this development. Immigration officers hold various statutory powers enabling entry to premises to look for individuals and material and, upon entry, to arrest individuals and seize evidence. The scope of these powers expanded markedly when the Police and...

English law recognises no formal defence of entrapment; however, it is treated as an abuse of the court’s process when state agents entice a person into unlawful conduct and then attempt to prosecute them for it. The House of Lords has held that, although entrapment is not a substantive defence in English law, where a defendant can establish entrapment, the court may stay the case as an abuse of process or exclude the evidence. Where the state’s conduct threatens the rule of law, it would be unjust to put the defendant on trial at all. As a matter of policy, when a defendant has been subjected to such unfairness, the integrity of the criminal justice system depends upon their not being tried at all. State-created offending is improper and unacceptable, and bringing a prosecution in those circumstances would seriously affront the public...

Dishonesty Dishonesty furnishes the mens rea for numerous offences in statute and at common law, yet it is not comprehensively defined by legislation. The Theft Act 1968 ( TA 1968) is the key exception, offering a partial articulation of dishonesty, but only for offences within that Act (see: Theft offences—overview). In essence, dishonesty carries its plain English meaning. Whether a defendant has acted dishonestly is a question for the jury, assisted by judicial directions derived from the test in Ivey. The need to establish dishonesty arises in many, though not all, offences spanning the broad categories of financial, business, or corporate crime. For instance, it is required for the principal offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and for false accounting contrary to TA 1968, s 17. It is also a necessary element of certain offences under the Insolvency Act 1986, the Taxes...

A discretionary life sentence A discretionary life sentence is imposed on an offender for an offence where life imprisonment (or custody for life) is an available punishment, but not one prescribed by statute in every case. A range of offences carry life imprisonment, eg manslaughter, kidnapping, torture and hijacking. That said, this does not automatically result in a life sentence for every offender. Such sentences are typically reserved for situations in which the offender’s culpability is especially pronounced, or where the offence itself is extraordinarily grave. A discretionary life sentence contrasts with a mandatory life sentence, under which the sentencing judge has no discretion and must impose a term of life imprisonment. See Practice Note: Mandatory life sentences......