Greater Manchester Police, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court [2022] EWHC 3709 (Admin) (01 November 2022)

Greater Manchester Police, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court [2022] EWHC 3709 (Admin) (01 November 2022)

The Crown Court's decision was quashed because it fundamentally erred in law by applying the principles of confiscation proceedings under Part 2 of POCA to a forfeiture application under Part 5, misallocating the burden of proof and failing to consider the correct statutory test. The errors were material and not subject to the 'no substantial difference' exception under s.31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3709 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police; Defendant: Manchester Crown Court; Interested Party: Raja Imtiaz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Crown Court Decision
Outcome
Decision of the Crown Court quashed; matter remitted for rehearing in the Crown Court.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Account Forfeiture, Burden of Proof, Confiscation Orders, Civil Standard of Proof
Criminal Law Civil Recovery Judicial Review Proceeds of Crime Account Forfeiture Burden of Proof Confiscation Orders Civil Standard of Proof

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

Parties

The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Claimant

Manchester Crown Court

Defendant

Raja Imtiaz

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Crown Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court erred in law by applying the wrong legal principles to an appeal against an account forfeiture order under Part 5 of POCA
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Court wrongly treated findings in confiscation proceedings as determinative in forfeiture proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof was incorrectly placed on the respondent instead of the applicant in forfeiture proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Court's decision was quashed because it fundamentally erred in law by applying the principles of confiscation proceedings under Part 2 of POCA to a forfeiture application under Part 5, misallocating the burden of proof and failing to consider the correct statutory test. The errors were material and not subject to the 'no substantial difference' exception under s.31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Court Disposition

Decision of the Crown Court quashed; matter remitted for rehearing in the Crown Court.

Orders

  • The decision of the Crown Court is quashed.
  • The appeal is remitted to the Crown Court for a fresh hearing.