Serious Fraud Office v A: CACD 2 Aug 2007

The Director said the Judge had been wrong to discharge on grounds of want of disclosure a restraint order previously made ex parte under the Proceeds of Crime Act at the request of a foreign investigator.
‘The proper approach is to consider whether the public interest does or does not call for the order to stand, now that the true position is known, and taking into account the previous failure of disclosure. Whether the non-disclosure was deliberate or accidental will be a material factor, although not necessarily determinative. These propositions emerge from a number of cases: see in particular Brink’s Mat v Elcombe [1988] 1WLR 1350, and Jennings v CPS [2005] EWCA Civ 746 at paragraphs 52-57 and 62-64. A similar approach to a different kind of without notice application in aid of a criminal investigation, namely one for the production of special procedure material, was taken in R v Crown Court at Lewes ex p Hill (1991) 93 Cr App R 60 at 69. Whilst it is appropriate to insist on strict compliance with the rule of disclosure, discharge of the order does not necessarily follow as a means of disciplining the applicant, at least absent what Longmore LJ in Jennings referred to as ‘so appalling a failure’ that that ultimate sanction should be applied.’
Hughes LJ, Bean J, Saunders J
[2007] EWCA Crim 1927, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep FC 30
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005
Citing:
CitedJ v Crown Prosecution Service CA 24-Jun-2005
The defendant had been made subject to a criminal restraint order so as to preserve his assets pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. He complained that the order affected property which was not his.
Held: Such an order could cover . .

Cited by:
CitedMercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
mercury_hmrcAdmn08
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
CitedAn Informer v A Chief Constable CA 29-Feb-2012
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages against the police. He had provided them with information, but he said that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract causing him financial loss. The officer handling his . .
CitedMills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
mills_sussexAdmn1407
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 February 2021; Ref: scu.258525