The Director of Public Prosecutions v The Estate of Mildred Edwards (Deceased) & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1388 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Patrick Bijou
25 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2997 (Admin)
High Court
A convicted fraudster tried to get a property freezing order removed, claiming the assets were already dealt with in a previous case. The judge said the two legal processes are different, so it's not a problem to use both. The fraudster's attempt failed.
Key Facts
- •Patrick Bijou (formerly Eric Danison) seeks to vary a property freezing order (PFO) on assets considered in prior confiscation proceedings.
- •The PFO covers assets including a property, a car, and bank accounts.
- •Bijou claims issue estoppel or abuse of process, arguing the assets were already addressed in Crown Court confiscation proceedings.
- •Bijou has a history of fraud convictions and confiscation orders.
- •Confiscation proceedings initially did not include the disputed assets due to their late discovery.
- •Subsequent proceedings recalculated the available amount, including the disputed assets.
- •Bijou paid the confiscation order from other assets.
- •The DPP argues that confiscation and civil recovery proceedings are distinct and that there's no double recovery.
Legal Principles
Issue estoppel
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v. Zodiac Seats Ltd [2013] UKSC 46
Abuse of process (Henderson v. Henderson)
Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co. [2002] 2 AC 1
Confiscation proceedings under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Prevention of double recovery under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s.7(4)(a), s.308(9)
Res Judicata
Various
Outcomes
Application to vary the PFO dismissed.
No issue estoppel or abuse of process. Confiscation and civil recovery are distinct proceedings; the disputed assets were not considered in determining the benefit figure in the confiscation proceedings and the prevention of double recovery mechanisms in the Act were sufficient to prevent injustice. There was no relitigation of issues, and the later civil recovery proceedings did not constitute an abuse of process.