Stone v Clerk To the Justices, Plymouth Magistrates' Court

Exceptional delay in proceedings to enforce a confiscation order may breach the accused’s rights under Article 6(1) of the Convention. Where the delay is such a breach, the appropriate remedy may be to quash a committal order imposed for non-payment of the confiscation sum. The court may also make an order for the claimant’s unfunded costs to be paid from central funds after assessment.

The claimant had been convicted of drug trafficking and made subject to a confiscation order. Years later, after further enforcement proceedings concerning the unpaid balance, Plymouth Magistrates’ Court committed him to 344 days’ imprisonment on 21 February 2007.

He sought judicial review of the committal. The central issues were whether the delay breached Article 6(1) and, if so, the appropriate remedy.

1. Application granted. The committal order was quashed.
2. The overall delay was sufficient to breach the claimant’s rights under Article 6(1) of the Convention. The court reached that conclusion having regard to the lengthy period since the confiscation order and the desultory enforcement proceedings which followed.
3. The court relied on Crowther [2005] ECHR 53741/00, which it stated had essentially approved the approach in Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2003] EWHC 2294 (Admin). That approach established that, where the delay breached Article 6(1), the appropriate order was to quash the committal.
4. Unfunded costs were ordered to be paid out of central funds after assessment.

The judgment records the claimant’s committal by Plymouth Magistrates’ Court on 21 February 2007. The Administrative Court granted judicial review and quashed that order.