A v ACC [2017] EWHC 301 (QB) (15 February 2017)

A v ACC [2017] EWHC 301 (QB) (15 February 2017)

Although there was a serious default by the police in failing to disclose the claimant's CHIS status and related facts, the investigation would have continued even if proper disclosure had been made. Therefore, the statutory condition for compensation under section 72(4)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was not satisfied, and the claim fails.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 301
Parties
Claimant: A; Respondent: ACC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 72 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Compensation for Serious Default, Disclosure Obligations, Restraint Orders, Covert Human Intelligence Source (chis), Police Misconduct
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Compensation for Serious Default Disclosure Obligations Restraint Orders Covert Human Intelligence Source (chis) Police Misconduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

ACC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 72 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a serious default by the police in failing to disclose the claimant's CHIS status when applying for a restraint order
  2. 2 Whether the investigation would have continued if the default had not occurred
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered loss as a result of the restraint order

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a serious default by the police in failing to disclose the claimant's CHIS status and related facts, the investigation would have continued even if proper disclosure had been made. Therefore, the statutory condition for compensation under section 72(4)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was not satisfied, and the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed