Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Crown Court Sitting At Croydon

A court may stay confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where its own unequivocal representation has induced the offender to repay the benefit and proceeding would undermine the integrity of the administration of justice. The statutory scheme remains controlling, and the inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly. However, statutory powers do not require the court to conduct proceedings in a manner that makes its process an instrument of unfairness or brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Secretary of State challenged the decision of Her Honour Judge Downing at Croydon Crown Court to stay confiscation proceedings against an offender who had dishonestly obtained social security benefit. At the sentencing hearing, the Crown Court had stated that there would be no need for a confiscation hearing if the offender repaid the money before the hearing. She repaid the full amount in reliance on that representation. The issue was whether the Crown Court could properly stay the confiscation application even though the statutory scheme appeared to require the court to proceed when requested by the prosecution.

1. Application dismissed. The Crown Court was entitled to stay the confiscation proceedings.
2. The statutory nature of confiscation proceedings did not remove the court’s inherent power to prevent its own process from being used in a way that undermined public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice. That power must be exercised very sparingly, since the court must not usurp the legislative role or refuse to apply substantive law merely because its effect appears harsh.
3. The sentencing judge had made an unequivocal representation that the confiscation hearing would not proceed if the offender repaid the money. The offender repaid the full amount because of that representation, and the prosecution did not correct it before payment was made.
4. In those circumstances, proceeding with the confiscation application would have involved the court giving an inducement and then reneging on its words after the offender had acted upon them. It would therefore have been unfair and damaging to the integrity of the criminal justice process. The statutory provisions did not require that result.
5. The relevant principles were supported by Hunter v the Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1982] Appeal Cases 529-536 and Re: Barings PLC [1999] 1 All England Reports 311, 335-336. The observations in Nelson [2009] EWCA Crim. 1573; [2010] 1 Criminal Appeal Reports 52 concerning voluntary repayment and prosecutorial discretion were relevant statutory context, but were not decisive of the present issue.

• Croydon Crown Court: Her Honour Judge Downing stayed the confiscation proceedings as an abuse of process.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the Secretary of State’s challenge and upheld the stay.