R v Bradley Luxton
[2024] EWCA Crim 340
R v Mark Haden & Ors
16 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 344
Court of Appeal
Judges wrongly refused to give more time for confiscation orders because of a two-year time limit. The appeals court said the time limit isn't absolute, and they should have given more time because of big problems in the courts caused by Covid and lawyers' strikes. The cases will be re-tried.
Key Facts
- •Four appeals against refusals by Crown Court judges to make confiscation orders due to exceeding the two-year time limit under section 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- •Appeals relate to unrelated cases, but share the same legal issue.
- •Significant delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Criminal Bar Association action.
- •Court backlog and challenges with the digital case system contributed to delays.
- •Cases involved various complexities, including multiple defendants and lengthy proceedings.
Legal Principles
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 imposes a duty on the court to proceed with confiscation, not on other parties.
Soneji and Guraj
The two-year time limit in section 14 limits the time between the duty to proceed (section 6) and the conclusion of proceedings, not the point at which that duty arises.
Soneji and Guraj
The two-year period can be extended in exceptional circumstances, regardless of whether an application was made before expiry or not.
Soneji and Guraj
Compliance with section 14 is not a condition precedent to jurisdiction; jurisdiction is retained until proceedings are determined under section 6.
Soneji and Guraj
Non-compliance with section 14 may affect the fairness of the order, potentially leading to an abuse of process (though rare).
Waya, Soneji
"Exceptional circumstances" should be broadly interpreted.
Soneji
Prosecutorial misconduct can constitute exceptional circumstances.
Overruling of Anthony Smith
Outcomes
Appeals allowed in all four cases.
Crown Courts misdirected themselves on the interpretation of section 14, failing to recognize exceptional circumstances due to pandemic, CBA action, and court inefficiencies.
Crown Courts directed to proceed afresh, not restarting from scratch but continuing from the point of refusal.
Court retains jurisdiction, and exceptional circumstances justify extension beyond the two-year period.
Time extensions granted for the appeals.
Exceptional circumstances justify the extensions.
Cases to be relisted within 28 days for further directions and hearing dates.
To ensure timely resolution without avoidable delay.
Similar Cases
Kingdom Corporate Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for HMRC & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3315 (Admin)
Grahame Brennand v R
[2023] EWCA Crim 1384
Andrew Osarinmwian, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court
[2024] EWHC 76 (Admin)
Bakhtiar Abbasi, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Southwark
[2024] EWHC 1781 (Admin)