Shahid, R (on the application of) v Birmingham Magistrates' Court

Where a confiscation-order debtor obtains a certificate of inadequacy after committal proceedings, the materially changed circumstances may require the committal decision to be quashed. Where the confiscation order remains in force and enforcement proceedings continue, the proper course is ordinarily to remit the matter to the magistrates’ court. Remittal permits a fresh decision to be made in light of the circumstances then existing and avoids leaving enforcement proceedings unresolved.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by a district judge at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court to commit him to prison for failing to pay sums due under a confiscation order. The order had been made under Part 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. After the committal decision, the Administrative Court granted a certificate of inadequacy under section 83(1), recording that the claimant’s realisable property was insufficient to satisfy the order. The issue was whether the changed circumstances required the committal decision to be quashed and whether the matter should be remitted.

1. The court quashed the district judge’s decision to commit the claimant to prison. The certificate of inadequacy had plainly transformed the circumstances existing when the committal order was made. The claimant’s application under section 83(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 had resulted in a certificate stating that his realisable property was inadequate to satisfy the confiscation order and accrued interest.
2. The certificate enabled the claimant to apply to the Crown Court under section 83(3) of the 1988 Act for reduction of the amount recoverable. Although the recoverable amount might ultimately be reduced to nil, that remained a matter for the Crown Court on the evidence.
3. It was inappropriate simply to quash the committal decision without remittal. The confiscation order remained in force unless varied by the Crown Court, and enforcement proceedings were still extant. The matter was therefore remitted to the Magistrates’ Court, which could either allow the proceedings to end or make a fresh decision in light of the circumstances then existing.
4. Mr Justice Cranston agreed with Lord Justice Richards. The committal decision was quashed and the matter remitted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The claimant’s earlier appeal against the confiscation order was dismissed in March 2009; the judgment is cited as [2009] EWCA Crim 831. The court held that bankruptcy did not affect the making of the confiscation order, while observing that it might restrict enforcement.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The district judge’s committal decision was quashed and the matter remitted to Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.