be reduced to 18 months. Accordingly, after taking into account the sentences for the Bail Act offences, which are not the subject of appeal, the total sentence to be served by Sheppard is 3 years and 10 months and Whittle 1 year and 10 months. We grant leave to appeal against sentence and vary the sentences to that extent. Credit is in each case given for the 23 days spent on remand. Forfeiture 42. The judge made a forfeiture order against Sheppard under section 143 (1) (a) and (b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) with respect to items of office equipment and computers belonging to him. This aspect of his appeal against sentence requires an extension of time and leave to appeal. For reasons we shall explain we do not think there is any merit in the forfeiture appeal and we refuse both an extension of time and leave to appeal. 43. There was, unfortunately, no transcript of the judge’s ruling on forfeiture but in the event it was possible to overcome this problem by playing us in court a tape of the judge’s judgment. This was very helpfully transcribed by the shorthand writer who provided a transcript to the court shortly after the conclusion of the hearing. 44. The judge first referred to section 143 of the 2000 Act which provides: “Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court by or before which he is convicted is satisfied that any property which has been lawfully seized from him or which was in his possession or under his control at the time when he was apprehended for the offence or when a summons in respect of it was issued – a) has been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating commission of any offence or b) was intended by him to be used for that purpose, The court may (subject to sub-section (5) below) make an order under this section in respect of that property.” Subsection (5) provides: “In considering whether to make an order under this section in respect of any property, a court shall have regard – 45. (a) to the value of the property; and (b) to the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making).” The court had prepared a schedule. There was agreement about the forfeiture of some items; others were in dispute. There were two categories of disputed items, office equipment and computer equipment. The main thrust of Mr Davies’ argument on behalf of Sheppard before the judge was that he had a legitimate publishing business