Malik v Crown Prosecution Service [2013] EWHC 4591 (Admin) (3 October 2013)

Malik v Crown Prosecution Service [2013] EWHC 4591 (Admin) (3 October 2013)

Given the exceptional, inordinate, and unexplained delay by the prosecution in enforcing the confiscation order, despite the appellant's repeated cooperation, and the significant change in circumstances, it would be unfair, oppressive, and an abuse of process to permit any further enforcement. All forms of enforcement are to be stayed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 4591 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Malik; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Case Stated (criminal Confiscation Enforcement) / High Court Appeal by Way of Case Stated From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; all forms of enforcement stayed as an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Abuse of Process, Article 6 ECHR, Enforcement Delay, Stay of Proceedings
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Confiscation Orders Abuse of Process Article 6 ECHR Enforcement Delay Stay of Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malik

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Case Stated (criminal Confiscation Enforcement) / High Court Appeal by Way of Case Stated From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 6 years and 5 months delay in enforcement of a confiscation order, despite full cooperation by the defendant, requires a stay of all enforcement as an abuse of process under Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to stay interest payments on a confiscation order where enforcement of imprisonment is stayed but civil enforcement continues

Ratio Decidendi

Given the exceptional, inordinate, and unexplained delay by the prosecution in enforcing the confiscation order, despite the appellant's repeated cooperation, and the significant change in circumstances, it would be unfair, oppressive, and an abuse of process to permit any further enforcement. All forms of enforcement are to be stayed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; all forms of enforcement stayed as an abuse of process.

Orders

  • Stay imposed on the entirety of enforcement proceedings relating to the confiscation order.
  • Any monies already paid by the appellant remain unaffected.