Site icon swarb.co.uk

United States Government v Montgomery and Another: HL 6 Feb 2001

An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the list of designated countries. Though the Act prevented enforcement on English orders predating the Act there was no corresponding provision to prevent such action for similar foreign orders. It was possible also to recover interest on the original sum.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Scott of Foscote
Times 06-Feb-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 196, [2001] 1 All ER 815, [2001] UKHL 3, [2002] ILPr 27
House of Lords, Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories)(Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994 No 1639), Criminal Justice Act 1988 77
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoBarnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2) CA 24-Mar-2003
The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal . .
Appeal fromGovernment of United States of America v Montgomery and Montgomery CA 8-Jul-1998
Appeal from restraint orders. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Frank Adam Moran (Attorney General’s Reference No 25 of 2001) CACD 27-Jul-2001
The defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements, and cheating the public revenue by understating his profits as a market trader over a protracted period. The judge made a confiscation order equal to the amount of undeclared profit. On . .
See alsoBarnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2) CA 24-Mar-2003
The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal . .
CitedRegina (Aru) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 30-Jan-2004
The applicant had been cautioned by the police. The victim sought judicial review of that decision. The respondent now appealed.
Held: The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judicial review in a criminal matter . .
CitedRegina on the Application of South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust v Crown Court at Bradford CA 19-Dec-2003
A appealed an order made by the Crown Court under the 1964 Act for his detention in a mental hospital on the grounds that he was unfit to enter a plea to the charge of murder.
Held: The Court of Appal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. . .
CitedGovernment of the United States of America v Barnette and Montgomery (No 2) HL 22-Jul-2004
The applicant sought to resist orders for the return to the US of what were alleged to be the proceeds (direct or indirect) of a fraud committed there. She had been in contempt of the court in the US and was a fugitive here. She complained that the . .
CitedIn re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 29-Oct-2008
The applicant said that the defendant had unlawfully failed to provide detailed guidance under section 10 of the 1985 Act, on the circumstances under which a prosecution might lie of a person performing acts which might assist another to commit . .
CitedGuardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.90078 br>

Exit mobile version