Merseyside Police v Reynolds [2004] EWHC 2862 (Admin) (19 November 2004)

Merseyside Police v Reynolds [2004] EWHC 2862 (Admin) (19 November 2004)

The 90-day detention order expired at midnight on 11th May, not at 10:00 am. The 7-day notice period under Rule 5(3) is directory, not mandatory, and failure to comply did not deprive the magistrates' court of jurisdiction as the respondent was present and represented.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2862 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Chief Constable of Merseyside Police; Defendant: Lawrence Robert Reynolds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Liverpool Justices
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Cash Seizure, Detention Orders, Procedural Compliance, Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Court
Criminal Law Civil Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Cash Seizure Detention Orders Procedural Compliance Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Court

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

Parties

Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Claimant

Lawrence Robert Reynolds

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Liverpool Justices

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does a 90-day cash detention order under s.295 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 expire?
  2. 2 Is the 7-day notice period under Rule 5(3) of the Magistrates' Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 mandatory or directory?
  3. 3 Does failure to comply with the 7-day notice period deprive the magistrates' court of jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi

The 90-day detention order expired at midnight on 11th May, not at 10:00 am. The 7-day notice period under Rule 5(3) is directory, not mandatory, and failure to comply did not deprive the magistrates' court of jurisdiction as the respondent was present and represented.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to a different Bench of Justices for reconsideration of extension application with confirmation of jurisdiction.