Key Facts
- •Bakhtiar Abbasi was convicted of fraud in May 2023 following a private prosecution.
- •Confiscation proceedings were initiated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- •Witness summonses were issued against eight banks by the interested parties (prosecutors) to obtain Abbasi's banking records.
- •Abbasi sought judicial review of the Crown Court's decision to issue the summonses.
- •The application for judicial review was heard as a 'rolled-up' hearing.
Legal Principles
The Crown Court's jurisdiction to issue witness summonses under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.
Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, section 2
The exclusionary rule in section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which limits the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over Crown Court decisions in matters relating to trial on indictment.
Senior Courts Act 1981, section 29(3)
Judicial review is a remedy of last resort; alternative remedies should be pursued first.
Case law on judicial review principles
The interpretation of 'criminal proceedings' in section 2(1) of the 1965 Act; whether it extends to confiscation proceedings.
Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, section 2(1)
The ability of private prosecutors to initiate confiscation proceedings and the limitations on their investigatory powers.
R (Virgin Media Limited) v Zinga [2014] EWCA Crim 52
The procedural requirements for applications for witness summonses under the Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR).
Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR) 17.3, 17.4, 17.5
Outcomes
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused.
The Crown Court had jurisdiction to issue the witness summonses; the claim was out of time; an alternative remedy existed (applying to the Crown Court to set aside the summonses).