R v S [2019] EWCA Crim 1728 (17 October 2019)

R v S [2019] EWCA Crim 1728 (17 October 2019)

The judge erred in law by applying a higher standard than 'reasonable time' as required by s.42(7) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, failed to properly consider the prosecution's disclosure obligations and the complexity of the case, and took into account irrelevant considerations. The elapsed time was not unreasonable in the circumstances; therefore, the discharge of the Restraint Order was wrong and must be reversed.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 1728
Parties
Appellant: R; Respondent: S; Interested Parties: Trustees in Bankruptcy of S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Discharge of Restraint Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's order to discharge Restraint Order reversed.
Legal Topics
Restraint Orders, Money Laundering, Reasonable Time for Prosecution, Disclosure Obligations, Bankruptcy and Asset Restraint
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Restraint Orders Money Laundering Reasonable Time for Prosecution Disclosure Obligations Bankruptcy and Asset Restraint

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Appellant

S

Respondent

Trustees in Bankruptcy of S

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Discharge of Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings were started within a reasonable time under s.42(7) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in discharging the Restraint Order
  3. 3 Proper approach to 'reasonable time' in the context of complex criminal investigations

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by applying a higher standard than 'reasonable time' as required by s.42(7) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, failed to properly consider the prosecution's disclosure obligations and the complexity of the case, and took into account irrelevant considerations. The elapsed time was not unreasonable in the circumstances; therefore, the discharge of the Restraint Order was wrong and must be reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's order to discharge Restraint Order reversed.

Orders

  • Restraint Order to remain in force.
  • Progress report to be filed by prosecution as required by the original order.