Saccoccia v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

Permission to appeal and an extension of time should be refused where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success. A foreign conviction, sentence and forfeiture order that remain undisturbed retain their effect in domestic enforcement proceedings. A pending challenge to a separate order does not undermine the earlier order. Procedural fairness is satisfied where the applicant had adequate notice, time to prepare, and legal representation at the relevant hearing. An application to release restrained funds for legal costs may fail where the applicant has not shown that other assets are unavailable. The renewed applications were therefore dismissed.

The appellant challenged orders made by Mrs Justice Dobbs on 10 March 2008. Those orders registered a United States forfeiture order as an external confiscation order against property and funds in the United Kingdom, appointed the Crown Prosecution Service as receiver, and refused release of restrained funds for legal fees. The appellant alleged inadequate notice, inability to represent himself, denial of funding, pending United States appeals, territorial and temporal defects in the forfeiture order, retrospective legislation and Convention breaches. Permission was refused on paper by Sir Richard Buxton on 2 October 2009. The renewed application sought permission to appeal and an extension of time. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had any real prospect of success.

The renewed application for permission to appeal and the application for an extension of time were dismissed.

1. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The grounds were assessed against the evidence and legal materials before the High Court judge.
2. The applicant’s United States conviction, sentence and 1995 Rhode Island forfeiture order had not been overturned and were not subject to any further appeal. A separate forfeiture order made in 2006, which was unrelated and under appeal, could not affect the continuing effect or validity of the 1995 order.
3. The 1995 order covered the applicant’s funds in the United Kingdom. The challenge based on the asserted absence of those funds from the order therefore disclosed no arguable error.
4. The procedural fairness and Article 6 complaints had no real prospect of success. The applicant had adequate notice of the applications and time to prepare his case. At the hearing he was legally represented, his representative submitted a skeleton argument, and no objection was made to the appointment of the Crown Prosecution Service as receiver.
5. The judge was entitled to refuse release of restrained funds for legal fees because the applicant had not shown that he had no other assets elsewhere which could be used to meet those costs.

The remaining complaints concerning pending appeals, retroactive legislation, expiry of the United States order and the constitutionality of the sentencing statute did not alter that conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the paper refusal of permission by Sir Richard Buxton on 2 October 2009 was renewed. On 12 March 2010, Lord Justice Mummery dismissed the applications: [2010] EWCA Civ 259.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Mrs Justice Dobbs made the relevant orders on 10 March 2008, registering the United States forfeiture order, appointing the Crown Prosecution Service as receiver and refusing release of restrained funds for legal fees.