O'Keefe v Austin [2019] EWHC 2574 (Admin) (04 July 2019)

O'Keefe v Austin [2019] EWHC 2574 (Admin) (04 July 2019)

The legislative steer in section 82 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires preservation of restrained assets for satisfaction of confiscation orders. No 'very strong reasons' exist to justify release of funds for legal representation from the N14 property. Applicant must pursue legal aid; Human Rights Act considerations are adequately addressed by the legal aid scheme.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2574 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Crown Prosecution Service, Proceeds of Crime; Defendant: Herbert Charles Austin; Third Interested Party/applicant: Dennis O'Keefe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Receivership Proceedings / Application to Discharge or Vary Restraint Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint Orders, Confiscation Orders, Legal Aid, Third Party Interests, Human Rights Act 1998
Criminal Law Asset Recovery Human Rights Restraint Orders Confiscation Orders Legal Aid Third Party Interests Human Rights Act 1998

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service, Proceeds of Crime

Claimant

Herbert Charles Austin

Defendant

Dennis O'Keefe

Third Interested Party/applicant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Receivership Proceedings / Application to Discharge or Vary Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restraint order over N14 property should be discharged or varied to release funds for legal representation
  2. 2 Whether applicant's human rights require adaptation of legislative steer
  3. 3 Whether £175,000 of allegedly legitimate funds should be released

Ratio Decidendi

The legislative steer in section 82 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires preservation of restrained assets for satisfaction of confiscation orders. No 'very strong reasons' exist to justify release of funds for legal representation from the N14 property. Applicant must pursue legal aid; Human Rights Act considerations are adequately addressed by the legal aid scheme.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order for expedited transcript at public expense for applicant's use in legal aid application
  • Costs reserved for determination at receivership application