Leigh, R (on the application of) v Uxbridge Magistrates Court

Under Magistrates' Court Detention and Forfeiture of Cash Rules 2002, a magistrates’ court may determine a cash-forfeiture application at a directions hearing only where neither affected person seeks to contest it. Whether that condition is satisfied depends on the material before the magistrates, including indications that the application remains contested and any issue as to the statutory basis for forfeiture. Where the available record does not show that the magistrates were entitled to conclude that the condition applied, the forfeiture order may be quashed. The decision was expressly confined to the unusual facts and established no general principle.

The claimant sought judicial review of an order by Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court forfeiting €46,320 seized by Customs and Excise. The forfeiture application was made under section 298(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, with an alleged basis in section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

The claimant had previously indicated, through solicitors and counsel, that he contested the application. He later became unrepresented and failed to attend a directions hearing. The magistrates proceeded to determine the application and ordered forfeiture under rule 7(6) of the Magistrates' Court Detention and Forfeiture of Cash Rules 2002. The central issue was whether the magistrates were entitled to be satisfied that rule 7(6) applied.

1. The judicial review application succeeded and the magistrates’ forfeiture order was quashed.
2. Rule 7(6) of the Magistrates' Court Detention and Forfeiture of Cash Rules 2002 permits the court to decide a forfeiture application at a directions hearing where neither the person from whom the cash was seized nor another affected person seeks to contest it. The relevant question was whether the magistrates were entitled to be satisfied that this condition applied.
3. The circumstances were unusual and included the substantial sum seized, an apparent issue concerning the applicability or extent of applicability of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as amended, and clear earlier indications that the claimant contested the application. The claimant’s subsequent lack of representation and failure to attend did not, on the material available, establish that the contest had ceased.
4. There was no record showing what had been put before the magistrates, including whether the claimant’s earlier position and the possible jurisdictional issue had been drawn to their attention. In those circumstances, it could not be said that the magistrates were entitled to conclude that rule 7(6) applied.
5. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the particular facts and expressed no general principle. The matter was remitted to the magistrates to continue with the forfeiture application. The claimant was directed to provide Customs and Excise, within 28 days, with any evidence on which he relied and a skeleton argument explaining his case. No costs order was made in the claimant’s favour.

• Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court: ordered forfeiture of the detained cash at a directions/pre-trial hearing when the claimant was absent.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the forfeiture order and remitted the matter to the magistrates to continue the forfeiture application.