R Angela Deacon v Wimbledon Magistrates' Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Whipple |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3358 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | No. CO/671/2021 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2021] EWHC 3358 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Mrs Justice Whipple
No. CO/671/2021
and
Ms J. Gretstad (instructed by Tuckers Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
THE DEFENDANT was not represented.
Mr P. Laverack (instructed by the Metropolitan Police) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
This is an application for judicial review, permission having been granted by Chamberlain J. The decision under challenge is the refusal of the Wimbledon Magistrates' Court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. That refusal is dated 7 January 2021.
The background, in brief, is that following a criminal investigation the first interested party (“the police”) seized nearly £135,000 in cash from the claimant's home address. The police applied for the cash to be forfeited on the basis that the money was derived from unlawful conduct, their suspicion being that it represented fraudulently obtained benefits.
On 30 October 2020 an order for forfeiture under section 298(2)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“ POCA”) was made in respect of the entirety of this cash. That forfeiture order was made by the named defendant, the Wimbledon Magistrates' Court.
The claimant applied on 19 November to state a case for the opinion of the High Court and the questions that the claimant wanted to be asked were as follows:
“1. Can the Commissioner [the police] put the application under section 298 under two alternative bases simultaneously, namely in terms that ‘the probable source of the cash is fraud’ (Commissioner's Skeleton para.4) or that the source of the cash was some unidentified criminal conduct (section 298(2)(b))?
2. Were the Magistrates right to exclude the aggregate cash withdrawals by Esme Deacon and/or the appellant [now the claimant] as being the origin of the cash?”
There was a third question which is no longer pursued.
The Magistrates refused to state a case on grounds that the application was frivolous and that decision is now challenged. The certificate of refusal to state a case set out extensive reasons. In summary the Magistrates concluded that the first question had already been answered in settled case law and/or the answer was plain from the statute. There were statutory alternatives for the forfeiture of cash and the Magistrates had found that the case did fall into one of the two alternatives, namely limb (b). They had concluded that the various explanations given by the appellant (now claimant) and her mother (Esme Deacon) were incredible and they rejected those explanations as lacking credibility and defying logic. They made a finding of fact that the money was or represented the proceeds of unidentified unlawful conduct on the basis of what they said was an irresistible inference from all the evidence in the case. This, they said, did not involve any misdirection of law. It was in part based on the lies told by the appellant (now claimant) but that was just one of the various evidential factors considered by the Panel in reaching their conclusion that there was no credible explanation for the source of the cash and therefore drew the inference that it was the proceeds of unidentified unlawful conduct. They said that question two did not raise a question of law at all.
The police pressed the forfeiture proceedings on the basis of cash found at the claimant's house on 29 November 2018. The suspicion was that the money was derived from benefit fraud, and thus the application for forfeiture was advanced. I have already indicated in summary what the reasons were for refusing to provide a case stated, but I also note the reasons given in court at the time for ordering forfeiture, which reasons are summarised in the Legal Assessor's notes which have been provided for this court, as follows:
“Reasons- RP defined as prop obtained through unlawful conduct. Having considered evidence on this point, we find there is insufficient evidence available related to any alleged benefit fraud or related underlying offences and do not find on B of p that limb 1 has been satisfied. Second limb- relates to cash intended for unlawful conduct, this is by nature an unidentified and unidentifiable crime. The app must prove by evidence that the circs of handling property give rise to irresistible inference that it can that it can only be derived from crime. We heard evid from both you and your elderly mother. We found that your evid lacked credibility. There were many inconsistencies in your varying accounts, both to the police and to the court. Your mother's evid was of a limited nature and her memory appeared poor. There is no credible explanation for the unusually large amounts of cash found in your home. This gives rise to the irresistible inference that this cash can only be considered in some way derived from crime. On the balance of probabilities, we find the applicant has proved their case under the second limb and we order the forfeiture of the whole sum plus accrued interest.”
The claimant did not appeal to the Crown Court. Instead, having applied unsuccessfully to the Magistrates to state a case, the claimant brings this application by way of judicial review of the Magistrates on the basis that they have acted unlawfully in refusing to state that case. By way of submission before me, the claimant, represented by Mr Gretstad, maintains that there must be a case stated to answer these two questions which are questions of law which properly fall to be answered by the High Court. The defendant, in the usual way, is not present, but I have heard submissions from the police, represented by Mr Laverack, and I am grateful for the help I have received.
The law is not in dispute and I summarise it briefly. Under section 111(1) of the Magistrates Court Act any person can seek a case to be stated for the opinion of the High Court, but only on a question of law or jurisdiction. A case stated cannot extend to any issue on the facts. The justices can refuse to state a...
To continue reading
Request your trial