Key Facts
- •The claimant, an unregulated solicitor, had his bank account frozen following a suspicious activity report.
- •The Eastern Region Special Operations Unit (ERSOU) obtained a temporary freezing order from the Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court.
- •ERSOU's application for an extension of the freezing order was dismissed due to a procedural error.
- •The Magistrates' Court failed to provide the claimant with a copy of the order dismissing the application.
- •The claimant's bank refused to unfreeze the account without a court order.
- •The claimant sought judicial review of the Magistrates' Court's failure to produce the order.
Legal Principles
Duty to serve a copy of an order in proceedings under section 303Z1 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Magistrates’ Courts (Freezing and Forfeiture of Money in Bank and Building Society Accounts) Rules 2017, rule 3(7)
Article 6 ECHR: right to a fair trial, including public pronouncement of judgment.
Article 6 ECHR, Human Rights’ Practice: Patrick and Others paragraph 6.154, Pretto v Italy (1983) 6 EHRR 182
Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981 (as amended), section 115: general provision for service of orders (though not applicable to these civil proceedings).
Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981, section 115
Outcomes
Claim for judicial review allowed.
The Magistrates' Court failed to comply with its duty to record and provide the claimant with the outcome of the application for a freezing order, despite the lack of a substantive order. This was a breach of the claimant's rights under Article 6 ECHR and procedural rules. The court's failure to cooperate was deemed obstructive.
Order requiring the Magistrates' Court to produce an order in respect of the hearing on 20 January 2023.
To rectify the Magistrates' Court's failure to provide a record of the hearing's outcome, and to aid the claimant's ongoing civil proceedings.