Malik v Crown Prosecution Service

Malik v Crown Prosecution Service

The delay of 6 years and 5 months in enforcement, caused by the prosecution's inexcusable and unexplained failure to respond to the appellant's repeated attempts to cooperate, constituted oppressive behaviour and abuse of process. Given the changed circumstances and detriment suffered by the appellant and his family, all forms of enforcement, including civil, are stayed as a proportionate and necessary response.

Parties
Claimant: Malik; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (case Stated) / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; all enforcement proceedings stayed as abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Abuse of Process, Delay in Enforcement, Article 6 ECHR, Interest on Confiscation Orders
Criminal Law Civil Enforcement Human Rights Confiscation Orders Abuse of Process Delay in Enforcement Article 6 ECHR Interest on Confiscation Orders

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 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) / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate delay in enforcement of a confiscation order constitutes abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether all forms of enforcement including civil should be stayed due to delay
  3. 3 Whether Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to stay interest payments on confiscation orders

Ratio Decidendi

The delay of 6 years and 5 months in enforcement, caused by the prosecution's inexcusable and unexplained failure to respond to the appellant's repeated attempts to cooperate, constituted oppressive behaviour and abuse of process. Given the changed circumstances and detriment suffered by the appellant and his family, all forms of enforcement, including civil, are stayed as a proportionate and necessary response.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; all enforcement proceedings stayed as abuse of process.

Orders

  • Stay imposed on entirety of enforcement proceedings for confiscation order.
  • Monies already paid by appellant remain unaffected.