Mohammed Naseem Dost & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Manchester & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2799 (Admin)
Kingdom Corporate Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for HMRC & Anor
21 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3315 (Admin)
High Court
The government took a lot of money, but missed a deadline to keep it legally. They took it back again, and a court said that was okay, because the delay wasn't their fault. The important thing was that they took the money legally in the first place, and tried to get an order to keep it. They just missed the 48-hour deadline.
Key Facts
- •HMRC seized approximately £400,000 in cash from Kingdom Corporate Ltd's premises.
- •The initial detention order was made 12 minutes after the 48-hour deadline.
- •HMRC re-seized the cash after the initial order was deemed unlawful.
- •A second application for a detention order was granted by District Judge McIvor.
Legal Principles
A magistrates' court cannot retrospectively authorise the continued detention of cash after the 48-hour period has expired.
R v Uxbridge Magistrates' Court ex p Henry (unreported, 7 February 1994), Walsh and Etherington v HM Customs and Excise [2001] EWHC (Admin) 426, HMRC v Mann [2021] EWHC 1182 (Admin)
The power to seize cash under s 294 of POCA is not limited to cases where the cash is in the possession of a person other than the seizing authority.
Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v Hickman [2006] EWHC 451 (Admin)
Unlawful seizure of property cannot be legitimized by a subsequent re-seizure without returning the property to its owner first.
R (Cook) v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] 1 WLR 144
Section 295 of POCA only permits cash detention where the seizure was lawful.
R (Merida) Oil Traders Ltd v Central Criminal Court [2017] 1 WLR 3680
Re-seizure of cash under s 294 of POCA may be lawful even after an initial, time-barred detention order, provided it is not an abuse of process.
This case
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was dismissed.
The court found that the re-seizure of the cash was lawful, as it was not an abuse of process, and a second application for a detention order could be made.