Crown Prosecution Service, R (on the application of) v Cambridge Crown Court [2010] EWHC 663 (Admin) (19 February 2010)

Crown Prosecution Service, R (on the application of) v Cambridge Crown Court [2010] EWHC 663 (Admin) (19 February 2010)

The court held that the proper route for the prosecution to challenge the Crown Court's decision not to make a confiscation order under section 6 was by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 31(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, not by judicial review. The application for judicial review was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 663 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of the Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: Cambridge Crown Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Judicial Review; Determination of Jurisdiction and Proper Remedy
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; proper remedy is by appeal.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime Act, Confiscation Orders, Absconding Defendants, Jurisdiction, Appeals Vs Judicial Review
Criminal Law Judicial Review Confiscation Proceedings Proceeds of Crime Act Confiscation Orders Absconding Defendants Jurisdiction Appeals Vs Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of the Crown Prosecution Service

Claimant

Cambridge Crown Court

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Judicial Review; Determination of Jurisdiction and Proper Remedy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court judge erred in terminating confiscation proceedings under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 due to the defendant's absence
  2. 2 Whether judicial review is the appropriate remedy or whether an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'absconding' under sections 6 and 27 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proper route for the prosecution to challenge the Crown Court's decision not to make a confiscation order under section 6 was by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 31(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, not by judicial review. The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; proper remedy is by appeal.

Orders

  • Judicial review application dismissed
  • No determination on the merits of the underlying confiscation issue