Butler, R (on the application of) v Leeds Magistrates’ Court
[2023] EWHC 3420 (Admin)
Bakhtiar Abbasi, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Southwark
15 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1781 (Admin)
High Court
A man was convicted and the prosecutors wanted his bank records. They got a court order to get them from the banks. The man tried to challenge the court order, but the judge said the order was legal and the man should have challenged it sooner or in a different way. The man's challenge failed.
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).
Similar Cases
Michael John Harvey, R (on the application of) v Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates' Court
[2024] EWHC 2832 (Admin)
Darykie Ramos Molina, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook
[2024] EWHC 816 (Admin)
Tomasz Weiss & Anor, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court
[2024] EWHC 1256 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Chris Durham also called Bouye (deceased) and 2 others (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2024] UKPC 21