Grant, Re

On an appeal concerning committal and receivership orders, the Court of Appeal considers only whether the impugned orders were lawfully made. Complaints about earlier proceedings cannot affect their lawfulness, and the appellate court must proceed on the basis that earlier orders were correctly made. An appellant must engage with the reasons for the orders under challenge; general objections to the underlying history do not provide grounds of appeal. A committal order may nevertheless be set aside on appeal by consent where the prosecuting authority no longer considers imprisonment to serve the public interest, even though the order was properly made.

Following an earlier conviction for drug-trafficking offences, a confiscation order and a restraint order, the High Court appointed a receiver over the appellant’s beneficial interest in property and committed him for contempt after he failed to disclose his assets. Ouseley J made the receivership and committal orders in March 2011. The appellant appealed against the committal order and renewed his application for permission to appeal against the receivership order. He relied principally on alleged Convention violations in the earlier criminal proceedings and did not challenge the judge’s findings or reasons directly.

The central questions were whether those earlier complaints could undermine the later orders, whether the appellant had grounds to challenge either order, and what disposition was appropriate after the Crown Prosecution Service no longer sought his imprisonment in the public interest.

1. Scope of appeal. The court was concerned only with whether the committal and receivership orders made by Ouseley J should be set aside. It had no power to interfere with orders made by other courts on other occasions and had to proceed on the basis that the earlier proceedings were correctly conducted. Alleged defects in those proceedings therefore had no bearing on the lawfulness of the orders under appeal (para [13]).

2. Failure to identify an appealable error. An appellant must address the reasons for the order challenged. The appellant’s grounds and submissions did not engage with the judge’s reasoning, and he accepted that he had not complied with the restraint order. The judge’s finding that his beneficial interest in the property was limited to £15,000 was supported by the evidence, and the contempt finding and sentence were not undermined (paras [14]-[15]).

3. Disposition. The committal order had been properly made and the three-month sentence was merited. Nevertheless, after hearing the appellant’s account, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that imprisonment would no longer serve the public interest and agreed that the committal appeal should be allowed by consent. The appeal against committal was therefore allowed by consent. The renewed application for permission to appeal against the receivership order was dismissed (para [16]).

• High Court of Justice (Administrative Court): Ouseley J made the receivership and committal orders on 9 March 2011, in decisions reported as [2011] EWHC 996 (Admin) and [2011] EWHC 1007 (Admin).
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal against committal was allowed by consent, although the order had been properly made. The renewed application for permission to appeal against the receivership order was dismissed.