Blue Holdings & Ors v National Crime Agency

Blue Holdings & Ors v National Crime Agency

Where a Mutual Legal Assistance request is mentioned in evidence forming the basis for a prohibition order, the party against whom the order is sought is entitled to inspect the request, at least to the extent necessary to identify the property in question. The confidentiality of state-to-state communications does not override this entitlement where fairness requires disclosure, but redaction may be permitted to protect other confidential information. The judge erred in refusing inspection as regards property identification, but was correct to uphold confidentiality regarding whether the property was 'relevant property.'

Parties
Appellants: Blue Holdings (1) PTE Limited & Another; Respondent: National Crime Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Inspection Application in Administrative Court
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Confidentiality of State Communications, Proceeds of Crime, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Mutual Legal Assistance Criminal Asset Forfeiture Disclosure of Documents Confidentiality of State Communications Proceeds of Crime Case Management Discretion

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

Parties

Blue Holdings (1) PTE Limited & Another

Appellants

National Crime Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Inspection Application in Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are entitled to inspect the Mutual Legal Assistance request under CPR 31.14
  2. 2 How to balance the right to inspect with the confidentiality of state-to-state communications
  3. 3 Whether the judge's refusal was a proper exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Where a Mutual Legal Assistance request is mentioned in evidence forming the basis for a prohibition order, the party against whom the order is sought is entitled to inspect the request, at least to the extent necessary to identify the property in question. The confidentiality of state-to-state communications does not override this entitlement where fairness requires disclosure, but redaction may be permitted to protect other confidential information. The judge erred in refusing inspection as regards property identification, but was correct to uphold confidentiality regarding whether the property was 'relevant property.'

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Disclosure and inspection of a redacted version of the Mutual Legal Assistance request, limited to the property identified therein, if the NCA/DOJ wishes to pursue the prohibition order.
  • Confidentiality to be maintained as to other aspects of the request, particularly regarding whether the property is 'relevant property.'