Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v Reynolds
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2862 (QB) |
| Date | 19 November 2004 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Court and Reference: Divisional Court, CO/3509/2004
: Rose LJ and Leveson J
Appearances: I Unsworth (instructed by the Force Solicitor) for the Chief Constable; D Ackerley (instructed by Nadim Associates) for R
: At what time an order for the detention of cash for 90 days expired, and whether the failure to give 7 days notice of the application to renew the application or to obtain leave for short service rendered the subsequent proceedings a nullity
: On 10 February 2004 officers seized £14,980 in sterling and US$6,500 from the home address of R under s. 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 11 February, application was made to the Liverpool Justices under s. 295(2)(a) of the Act for an order allowing the extension of the period for which the cash could be detained for 3 months from the date of the order. The Justices granted that application and authorised the continued detention of the cash for a further period of 90 days. The order was timed at 10am. On 10 May 2004 there was faxed to the court and to R's solicitors an application for continued detention of the seized cash. The proceedings took place on the morning of 11 May.
R contended that the order of detention dated 11 February 2004 had extended the permitted detention of the cash until 10am on 11 May. He further contended that because there had not been 7 days between the notice of application and the hearing (as required by the Magistrates' Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002), the proceedings were irretrievably flawed.
The Justices concluded that strict compliance with the time limits for seized cash is necessary; that the application should have been processed sooner by the Chief Constable, and should not have been left until the date of expiration of the order of the 11 February 2004; that the earlier order had expired at 10am on 11 May 2004 and not midnight as contended by the Chief Constable; and that the failure to serve notice in accordance with the Rules was an irretrievable flaw. The Chief Constable appealed by way of case stated.
1. This is an appeal by way of Case Stated by the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police. He challenges a decision of the Liverpool Justices on 11 May 2004.
2. The circumstances, as they are set out in the case were these. On 10 February 2004 officers in the Merseyside police seized £14,980 in sterling and $6,500 (US) from the home address of Mr Reynolds, the respondent. As it ultimately emerged, the US Dollars were in fact forged and there have, subsequent to the proceedings before the Magistrates, been charges levelled against the respondent in relation to that. But that aspect of the matter is immaterial for present purposes.
3. The seizure was made under s. 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which enables a constable to seize cash if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting it is recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct.
4. On the following day, 11 February, application was made to the Liverpool Justices, under s. 295(2)(a) of the Act. Section 295 provides:
"(1) While the constable continues to have reasonable grounds for his suspicion, cash seized under s. 294 may be detained initially for a period of 48 hours.
(2) The period for which the cash or any part of it may be detained may be extended by an order made by a magistrates' court… but the order may not authorise the detention of any of the cash-
(a) beyond the end of the period of 3 months beginning with...
To continue reading
Request your trial