An order for the seizure of £400,000 was validly made despite falling minutes outside a 48-hour time limit because of delays in a magistrates’ court, judges have found. In Kingdom Corporate v Commissioners for HMRC, the Divisional Court dismissed an application for judicial review brought ‘on a point of principle’ over the lawfulness of the seizure under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
The case centres on HMRC’s seizure of £350,000 in sterling and a further £50,000 in foreign currency in January this year. An application was made for the continued detention of the seized cash, subject to a 48-hour limit which expired at 5:38pm on the day.
The parties attended Thames Magistrates Court at 2pm. At around 4pm, HMRC addressed the bench and legal adviser saying the case had to be dealt with before 5.30pm. At 5pm, the courtroom shut, and the parties were told a different courtroom would hear the application.
But ‘after a further period of waiting’ the second courtroom was closed. The case was called at 5.20pm in a third courtroom. The bench retired at 5.48pm and returned two minutes later.
According to the judgment, the legal adviser advised the bench that the order had been validly made because the case had been called before 5:38pm. HMRC re-seized the cash and an order was granted for the money’s detention for six months.
The claimants challenged the seizure ‘on a point of principle’ arguing that the application fell outside the strict 48-hour limit.
However, Lord Justice Bean, with whom Mrs Justice Tipples agreed, found: ‘It would be extraordinary if the 48-hour time limit on lawful detention had such a decisive effect. There would also be serious practical difficulties for the courts. Applications to renew the detention of cash, where the initial seizure was in the late afternoon or evening, would either have to be heard the next day (giving the person from whom the cash was seized no time to prepare) or given priority ahead of other urgent business, including custody cases.
‘Even then the case could be beset by any…routine mishaps. Further, while there is no suggestion of time-wasting in the present case, the prospect of an unscrupulous advocate trying to run down the clock may not be entirely fanciful.’
Dismissing the judicial review application, the judge said HMRC ‘had done everything they reasonably could to obtain a hearing: the fault lay with the court system, not with them’.
