UK Supreme Court Holds That There Is No Automatic Right for a Person With Property Interest to Make Representation at First Stage of Confiscation Process

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...
Moshiuzzaman
Moshiuzzaman
Moshiuzzaman holds a 2:1 LL.B degree from BPP University (UK). He is currently pursuing the CFA chartership and working as an independent legal researcher at the American Society of International Law (ASIL)

Follow us

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was asked to determine a point of law of general public importance concerning the making of confiscation orders and the operation of s.160A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court held that there was no automatic right for a person with a property interest to make representation at the first stage of a confiscation process. 

Facts of the Case

On the 22nd of September 2015, the Appellant (Hilton) was convicted of three separate offences contrary to s.105 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. The offences related to serious cases of fraud. Following the conviction, Hilton was committed to the Crown Court for confiscation proceedings. The Judge made a confiscation order in respect of £10,263.50. This was equivalent to half of Hilton’s matrimonial home. Against this order, Hilton filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

In R v Hilton [2017] NICA 73, the Court of Appeal decided that s.160A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) required that, at the time of making a confiscation order, the Crown Court must consider a person, who might hold an interest in the property, the opportunity to make representations on whether a confiscation order should be made, if so, in what amount. The failure to give Hilton’s estranged partner and the building society the chance to make representation was fatal to the decision of the Judge. The confiscation order was thus invalid. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court’s Decision 

The Supreme Court explained the purpose and operation of s.160A of POCA 2002. There are potentially two stages to confiscation proceedings, namely, the making of the order and subsequently its enforcement. It was held that s.160A was intended to combine them into one for simple cases. However, in complex cases, particularly, one which concerns property that is jointly owned, the two-stage process could still occur. In such matters, any potential third-party property interest could arise for consideration at the enforcement stage. 

Regarding approaching confiscation proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that the obligation to make an order arose in relatively straightforward and quasi-automatic circumstances. Once it had arisen, the Court was under the duty to decide whether a Defendant had benefited from their criminal conduct, and if so, the potential recoverable amount. The method of calculating was enlisted in the 2002 Act, under s.159(1)(a). Consequently, where the Defendant held an interest in a certain property, the Court had to “determine”, the extent of their interest in that property, under s.160A(1). It was required by s.160A(2) not to exercise that power unless it gave “to anyone who the Court thinks is or maybe a person holding an interest in the property a reasonable opportunity to make representations.” 

The critical question before the Court was whether the Judge in the instant case had in fact “determined” the extent of Hilton’s interest under s.160A(1) to preclude any further representation by a person(s) other than Hilton. Making a “determination” as to the extent of a person’s interest which precluded later representations by third parties was dependent on the Court’s decision that it was appropriate to do so. Given the requirement in s.160A(2), the Judge had to be confident that the third party’s interest would not be affected. 

The question of whether a confiscation order had been made in response to such a determination had to be addressed with the two-stage process firmly in mind. If third party interests were not considered and disposed of at the stage of making the confiscation order, they had to be dealt with at the enforcement stage. The fundamental point was that, at the enforcement stage, third party rights might continue to be considered, either because the Judge did not make an s.160A determination or because the Judge did so without affording a person with an interest in the property the opportunity to make representations when the determination was made. 

Regarding whether the Judge in the Court of Appeal made a s.160A determination in the instant case, the Supreme Court held that he did not. The Judge had been principally concerned with the relevance of the costs of sale of the property. The possible significance of third-party interests had not been referred to and the Judge had probably been unaware of them. S.160A, therefore, had no bearing on the case and the Judge’s order was to be restored. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -