Merseyside Police v Hickman & Anor

Cash lawfully seized under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may subsequently be seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The statutory time limits governing detention begin when the cash is seized under the 2002 Act; they do not prescribe when that seizure must occur. The power is not excluded merely because the same cash was previously seized under another statutory power or remains in police possession. A later seizure is valid if the cash satisfies the statutory minimum applicable at that later time. The statutory scheme does not infringe Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Cash and cannabis were seized from premises under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The cash was retained during criminal proceedings, but the defendant later pleaded guilty to simple possession and no forfeiture or deprivation order was made. When the alleged owner sought return of the money, the police seized it under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and applied for forfeiture.

The District Judge held that the second seizure was impermissible and that the cash had originally fallen below the statutory minimum then applicable. The High Court was asked whether cash seized under the 1984 Act could be re-seized under the 2002 Act, and whether the later seizure was possible where the original seizure occurred when the minimum amount was higher.

1. Re-seizure. Cash seized under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may be seized subsequently under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Section 295 imposes limits on detention after seizure under section 294, but does not impose a time limit on when that seizure may occur.
2. The power under section 294 is not excluded because another statutory power has previously been used in relation to the same property. Nor is it confined to cash held by someone other than the police. Cash may be seized while already in police possession, provided the statutory conditions are met.
3. The reference in the definition of cash to property being found in the United Kingdom defines the territorial scope of the power. It does not require the cash to be in another person's possession.
4. The relevant statutory minimum is the minimum applicable at the time of the section 294 seizure. The later seizure was therefore legally possible if the amount then exceeded the applicable minimum, notwithstanding that the amount was below the earlier minimum when first seized.
5. The statutory scheme was prescribed by law and did not infringe Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
6. The questions were answered in the affirmative. The issue whether the exercise of the section 294 power was an abuse of power or process was not determined and was remitted to the District Judge for further hearing under section 298. The District Judge's costs order was quashed. Mrs Preston was ordered to pay the appellant's appeal costs, subject to detailed assessment and an inquiry into her means before enforcement.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The District Judge's conclusions on the validity of the second seizure were displaced. The matter was remitted for determination of the unresolved abuse-of-power issue.