Howard, Re Drug Trafficking Act 1994 [2001] EWCA Civ 47 (24 January 2001)

Howard, Re Drug Trafficking Act 1994 [2001] EWCA Civ 47 (24 January 2001)

There was no evidence of deliberate abuse of process by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the court in prior proceedings did not accept the applicant's ownership of the property as conclusive. The application for release of proceeds cannot succeed without proper evidence of interests and should have been pursued by appeal from the relevant hearing.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 47
Parties
Subject of Restraint Order: Ian Howard; Applicant/appellant: Joseph Kirkitar; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint Orders, Drug Trafficking, Confiscation Orders, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Restraint Orders Drug Trafficking Confiscation Orders Abuse of Process

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Howard

Subject of Restraint Order

Joseph Kirkitar

Applicant/appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint order over the property should be varied or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Prosecution Service abused process by adopting inconsistent positions
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of ownership in prior proceedings is conclusive under section 11 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of deliberate abuse of process by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the court in prior proceedings did not accept the applicant's ownership of the property as conclusive. The application for release of proceeds cannot succeed without proper evidence of interests and should have been pursued by appeal from the relevant hearing.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused.