P, Re

For an application under section 77 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the applicant must show that the property is realisable property. A previous judicial finding that the defendant has an interest may satisfy that requirement where it remains the latest full determination and has not been shown to be wrong.

A management receiver may be appointed where it is just and convenient to protect the value of realisable property. The applicant need not prove actual deterioration. A foreseeable risk to value, together with inadequate evidence that the property is being properly managed, may suffice. Receiver costs must remain proportionate to the work reasonably required.

The claimant sought the appointment of a management receiver under section 77 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 over chattels and 2A Belgrade Road, property associated with the defendant’s confiscation proceedings. The defendant did not oppose the application.

An interested party claimed to be the sole legal and beneficial owner of 2A Belgrade Road and argued that the application was misconceived because the property was not realisable property. The court considered whether the claimant had established the necessary interest, whether appointment was just and convenient, whether receiver costs were proportionate, and the appropriate costs and appeal orders.

1. Realisable property. The claimant had to establish that 2A Belgrade Road was realisable property within section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, assisted where necessary by section 102(7). The restraint order could be general in terms under section 77(3), so the absence of a specific reference to the property did not prevent an order under section 77(8).
2. The criminal trial judge had found that the defendant had an interest in the property. Although an appeal was pending, that finding remained the last full judicial treatment of ownership. The interested party’s late and insubstantial evidence did not displace it. The claimant had therefore established, for the purposes of the application, that the property was held by the defendant.
3. Appointment of receiver. Sections 82 and 82(2) required the receiver’s powers to be exercised with a view to preserving value available to satisfy the confiscation order. The governing test was whether appointment would be just and convenient. Actual deterioration in value was unnecessary. A possible danger to the value of valuable realisable property, including risks arising from occupation and uncertain insurance, could justify appointment where management arrangements and responses to the claimant’s concerns were inadequate.
4. The appointment over 2A Belgrade Road was convenient and just on the evidence. The receiver was also appointed over the chattels, to which no objection was made. The order gave no power of sale or charge over 2A Belgrade Road; any such power would require a fresh application to the court.
5. The proposed costs were not shown to be disproportionate to the work required. The interested party was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis if not agreed. Permission to appeal was refused because no arguable error of law had been identified.

Not an appeal. The judgment records an appeal against the confiscation order as pending in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, but this application was determined at first instance.