Designated Officer for Sunderland Magistrates' Court v George Knowles Krager

A confiscation order may be enforced as a deemed civil judgment debt through the ordinary enforcement procedures available in the High Court or county court. The receivership provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are not an exclusive enforcement route, including where enforcement concerns property allegedly held beneficially by the defendant but legally owned by a third party. Third parties retain the opportunity to assert their interests. A person may bring proceedings under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 only if that person has a sufficient interest in the property. The High Court cannot transfer concluded county court proceedings under section 41 of the County Courts Act 1984.

The claimant, suing as the Designated Officer for Sunderland Magistrates' Court, sought declarations under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 concerning the alleged beneficial interest of the first defendant in a dwelling registered to the second defendant. The claim followed a confiscation order made by the Crown Court and a charging order obtained in the county court.

A preliminary issue arose concerning both the enforceability of the confiscation order through civil enforcement procedures and the claimant's standing. The charging order had been applied for and granted to another designated officer, owing to a mistaken belief about the responsible magistrates' court.

1. The jurisdiction challenge failed. Section 35(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 applies the statutory provisions governing enforcement of fines to a confiscation order. Section 140 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 treated the Crown Court fine as imposed on conviction by the magistrates' court that committed the defendant for trial. Section 87(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 consequently enabled enforcement by the High Court or county court as if the sum were due to the designated officer.

2. The linguistic distinction between a sum adjudicated to be paid and a sum imposed on conviction did not prevent section 87(1) applying. Section 35(3)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which disapplied section 87(3), confirmed that section 87(1) remained effective.

3. The receivership provisions in sections 50 onwards of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were not exclusive. A charging order could affect only the defendant's interest, leaving the claimant to establish that such an interest existed. Third parties could contest the charging order and assert their rights.

4. Webber v Webber (Crown Prosecution Service intervening) [2007] 1 WLR 1052 did not decide the issue. Its reference to the Crown Court's sole jurisdiction concerned the legislative transfer of an earlier enforcement jurisdiction and did not address civil enforcement under section 35.

5. The claimant lacked standing under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, because she had neither applied for nor obtained the charging order. Section 41(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 could not assist because the county court proceedings had concluded. Retrospective variation or rectification was in any event inappropriate. The proceedings were dismissed.