Ministry Of Justice Of The Kingdom Of The Netherlands v Huseyin Baybasin & Or
[2024] EWHC 2343 (KB)
The Ministry of Justice of the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Huseyin Baybasin
18 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1147 (Admin)
High Court
A judge overturned a decision to sell a house because the lawyers involved had a conflict of interest and didn't follow proper legal steps. The case is going back to court to be handled correctly.
Key Facts
- •Huseyin Baybasin (defendant) is serving a life sentence in the Netherlands for conspiracy to murder and drug trafficking.
- •Mehmet Baybasin (brother of Huseyin) is serving a 30-year sentence in the UK for drug trafficking.
- •A 1998 Order, obtained by the CPS on behalf of the Dutch government (claimant), restrained Huseyin's assets, including a house in Edgware.
- •In 2018, a Crown Court determined that the Edgware house was owned equally by four Baybasin brothers, including Mehmet.
- •Christine Bartlett (applicant), acting as enforcement receiver for Mehmet, sought to sell the house, resulting in Kerr J's order in December 2022.
- •Huseyin applied to set aside Kerr J's Order due to procedural irregularities and potential conflict of interest by the CPS.
- •The CPS acted as both the agent for the Dutch government and the prosecutor against Mehmet, potentially creating conflicting interests.
Legal Principles
Section 26 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (DTA), as applied by the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1996.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1996
The 1990 Strasbourg Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and the Proceeds from Crime.
CETS 141
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), Part 83
CPR
Outcomes
Kerr J's Order was set aside.
Procedural irregularities: the application was made ex parte without proper notice to Huseyin and the claimant. Conflict of interest: the CPS's dual role created a potential conflict of interest.
Master Eastman's Order was set aside.
The order was based on the now-set-aside Kerr J's Order.
Directions were given for further proceedings.
To address procedural issues, resolve the conflict of interest, and allow for a fair hearing.
Costs were reserved.
To be dealt with later.