R v Mark Haden & Ors
[2024] EWCA Crim 344
R v Bradley Luxton
16 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 340
Court of Appeal
The police caught a drug dealer. They tried to take his assets, but made a mistake about the rules and withdrew their claim. The higher court said the judge should have made a decision about the assets, not let the police just give up, and sent the case back to be tried properly.
Key Facts
- •Bradley Luxton was convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy to convert criminal property.
- •Confiscation proceedings were initiated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
- •The prosecution withdrew its confiscation application due to errors regarding the expiry of the postponement period and misinterpretations of R v. Iqbal.
- •The prosecution appealed the lower court's refusal to rescind its decision under the 'slip rule' (section 385, Sentencing Act 2020).
- •The Court of Appeal considered whether the lower court's refusal was a 'decision not to make a confiscation order', triggering a right of appeal under section 31(2) POCA.
Legal Principles
A prosecutor may appeal a Crown Court's decision not to make a confiscation order under section 31(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 31(2)
The 'slip rule' (section 385, Sentencing Act 2020) allows the Crown Court to vary or rescind a sentence within 56 days, but its application is not limited to only material errors of law or fact.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 385
An application to extend the postponement period under POCA must be made before the expiry of the permitted period, however, the court can postpone or extend a postponement of its own motion.
POCA, section 14, R v. Iqbal, R v. Johal, R v. Guraj, R v. Neish
Exceptional circumstances may justify extending the postponement period beyond the two-year limit under POCA, even retrospectively.
POCA, section 14, R v. Soneji, R v. Johal
The prosecution's withdrawal of confiscation proceedings does not end the proceedings; the court retains the responsibility to decide whether to make a confiscation order.
POCA, section 6
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal granted leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to challenge the decision of 27 July 2023.
The prosecution's withdrawal was based on flawed facts and law; the lower court should have refused the withdrawal and heard submissions on the postponement.
The appeal was allowed.
The lower court erred in concluding it had ‘no decision to make’ because the prosecution withdrew; this was, in effect, a decision not to make a confiscation order.
The case was remitted to the Crown Court to proceed afresh.
The Court of Appeal found exceptional circumstances existed to justify extending the postponement period.