The Court heard an interim application to decide whether an appeal to the Supreme Court existed under the 2002 Act. A restraint order had been made as to the appellants assets.
Held: The statutory provisions substituting the Supreme Court for the House of Lords had omitted to deal with the 2005 Order appeal provisions. Leave to appeal was not required to have been given by the Court of Appeal, and it could not be imposed retrospectively.
Judges:
Lord Phillips P, Kerr, Sumption LL
Citations:
[2012] UKSC 3
Links:
Statutes:
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 40 41, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 33(3), Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 (SI 2005/3181)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Stanford International Bank Ltd, Re CA 25-Feb-2010
Hughes LJ said: ‘it is essential that the duty of candour laid upon any applicant for an order without notice is fully understood and complied with. It is not limited to a duty not to misrepresent. It consists in a duty to consider what any other . .
Cited – The Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited v Irving The Collector of Customs for Queensland PC 17-May-1905
(Queensland) A later Order cannot retroactively place restrictions upon a right of appeal that currently exists. . .
See Also – Re Stanford International Bank Ltd Misc 16-Jan-2012
Reasons for order releasing funds from sums subject to restraint order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451455
