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 status as a CHIS, the investigation would have continued even if full disclosure had been made, and the property would have remained restrained. Therefore, the statutory conditions for compensation under section 72 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were not satisfied and the claim fails.

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

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

Compensation Claim 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 status as a CHIS 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 status as a CHIS, the investigation would have continued even if full disclosure had been made, and the property would have remained restrained. Therefore, the statutory conditions for compensation under section 72 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were not satisfied and the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed