Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 april 2003

Alinea 39 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 april 2003

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 april 2003, ECLI:NL:PHR:2003:AF4146.

4. However, the purpose of this procedure was not the conviction or acquittal of the applicant for any other drugs-related offence. Although the Crown Court assumed that he had benefited from drug-trafficking in the past, this was not, for example, reflected in his criminal record, to which was added only his conviction for the November 1995 offence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant was "charged with a criminal offence". Instead, the purpose of the procedure under the 1994 Act was to enable the national court to assess the amount at which the confiscation order should properly be fixed. The Court considers that this procedure was analogous to the determination by a court of the amount of a fine or the length of a period of imprisonment to impose upon a properly convicted offender. This, indeed, was the conclusion which it reached in its Welch v. the United Kingdom judgment of 9 February 1995 (Series A no. 307-A) when, having examined the reality of the situation, it decided that a confiscation order constituted a "penalty" within the meaning of Article 7."

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/9524a1d3b4a4a75382d43296c6626faea0250c9461d2d6d88548c82fab1ae889. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 9524a1d3b4a4a75382d43296c6626faea0250c9461d2d6d88548c82fab1ae889, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 20465 tot 21578.