Daniels v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted of serious sexual offences involving the exploitation of children through photography, including numerous rapes and creation of indecent images. Following conviction and sentencing at Salisbury Crown Court on 7 February 2019 by His Honour Judge Parkes QC, a deprivation order was made under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. This order mandated forfeiture and destruction of seized computers, hard drives, and cameras used or intended to be used in the commission of the offences.

A total of 149 items were seized, with many returned after correspondence between the Applicant's legal representatives and the police. However, by late 2020, discussions about the return of remaining items broke down. The matter was brought before Winchester Crown Court in May 2021, where the judge held no jurisdiction to vary or overturn the deprivation order. The Applicant subsequently sought leave to appeal the deprivation order, arguing that some items subject to the order had no connection to the offences and should not be forfeited.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the deprivation order made under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was properly made and should be upheld.
2. Whether items not linked to the offending should be excluded from the deprivation order or returned to the Applicant.
3. Whether the Applicant should be permitted a period to instruct an expert to extract lawful material from devices subject to the deprivation order.
4. Whether the Applicant’s late application for leave to appeal should be allowed despite delay.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that certain items seized and subject to the deprivation order had no connection to the offences and thus should not be forfeited.
• He did not seek complete quashing of the order but requested that it be quashed and remade to exclude items not meeting the statutory test under section 143.
• The Applicant proposed that, as in R v Tan [2024] EWCA Crim 1104, an expert be allowed to remove lawful material from devices containing illegal content before the deprivation order takes effect.
• He acknowledged the application was over three years late but argued that new legal representatives acted promptly upon taking over and that efforts were made to resolve the matter constructively.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution maintained that the deprivation order was properly made under section 143, covering all computers, hard drives, and cameras lawfully seized and connected to the offences.
• It was submitted that the police had undertaken efforts to identify and return lawful material where possible.
• The prosecution argued that no entitlement existed under the order or legislation for an independent expert to extract lawful material from devices containing illegal content unless agreed at the sentencing hearing.
• They contended that issues regarding the return of items outside the scope of the order were civil matters and not within the court’s jurisdiction.
• The prosecution opposed the extension of time for the late application, citing lack of justification for the delay after the deadlock was apparent in 2021.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Wright-Hadley (Stephen) [2022] EWCA Crim 446	Principles governing deprivation orders under section 143 including: Requirements for making deprivation orders. Consideration of proportionality and financial effects. Procedural requirements including evidential basis and court enquiry.	The court applied these principles to confirm that the original deprivation order was properly made, noting no procedural or substantive errors in the absence of challenge at sentencing.
R v Tan (Desmond) [2024] EWCA Crim 1104	Consideration of whether deprivation orders should be limited to unlawful material and whether a period should be allowed for lawful material extraction by an expert.	The court distinguished the present case from Tan, noting no request was made at sentencing for a period to extract lawful material. It reaffirmed that deprivation orders apply to devices as a whole and extraction is not a statutory entitlement unless agreed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which authorises deprivation orders for property used or intended for use in the commission of offences. The court noted that the order was made with the agreement of both prosecution and defence at sentencing and was supported by an evidential basis given the nature and seriousness of the offences.

It was emphasised that no challenge or request for a formal enquiry into individual items was made at sentencing, and the judge was not obliged to investigate matters not raised by the parties. The court highlighted that subsequent administrative processes to identify and return lawful material were outside the scope of the deprivation order and not mandated by the legislation.

The court rejected the Applicant’s complaint about the police’s efforts to identify lawful material, stating this was not a matter for the criminal court but rather an administrative or civil issue. The court also ruled that the lack of a request at sentencing for a grace period to extract lawful material precluded such relief on appeal.

Regarding items not covered by the order (CDs, DVDs, tapes), the court acknowledged that these fell outside the terms of the order and that any dispute over their retention would be a civil matter beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

The court further considered the Applicant’s delay in filing the appeal and found no satisfactory explanation or justification for the lengthy extension of time sought.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against the deprivation order made under section 143.

The direct effect of this decision is that the deprivation order remains in force as originally made, covering the seized computers, hard drives, and cameras. No amendment or remaking of the order will occur. The court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed established principles regarding deprivation orders and the procedural requirements for challenging them. Issues concerning the police’s administrative handling of lawful material or retention of items outside the order’s scope remain matters for other forums, including civil courts.