AP U Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

AP U Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

Section 41(4) of POCA is compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 6 of the ECHR. Parliament was entitled to prohibit use of restrained funds for legal expenses and provide state aid as an alternative. The measure is proportionate and serves a legitimate aim. The existence of hard cases does not render the legislation incompatible; potential unfairness can be addressed under Article 6 in individual cases.

Parties
Appellant: AP; Appellant: U Limited; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service; Respondent: Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office; Intervener: Ministry of Justice and Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeals dismissed; declaration of incompatibility refused; Crown's appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restraint Orders, Proceeds of Crime, Legal Expenses, Compatibility With ECHR, Declaration of Incompatibility
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Restraint Orders Proceeds of Crime Legal Expenses Compatibility With ECHR Declaration of Incompatibility

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AP

Appellant

U Limited

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office

Respondent

Ministry of Justice and Home Office

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 41(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether section 41(4) of POCA breaches Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether restrained funds can be released for legal expenses

Ratio Decidendi

Section 41(4) of POCA is compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 6 of the ECHR. Parliament was entitled to prohibit use of restrained funds for legal expenses and provide state aid as an alternative. The measure is proportionate and serves a legitimate aim. The existence of hard cases does not render the legislation incompatible; potential unfairness can be addressed under Article 6 in individual cases.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed; declaration of incompatibility refused; Crown's appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration of incompatibility refused
  • Appeals by AP and U Ltd dismissed