Iqbal v South Bedfordshire Magistrates Court

A lawful seizure under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may be followed by a seizure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 without first returning the property, provided the original seizure was lawful and the statutory conditions for reseizure are satisfied. The police may retain the property for a short period while considering their position after the original detention power ends. There is no deemed seizure: seizure under the 2002 Act is a formal act which must be carried out by a constable who personally considers the statutory criteria. The relevant criteria include reasonable suspicion that the cash is recoverable property and that it meets the statutory minimum. The detention order was therefore lawful.

Cash was seized during a police search of the claimant’s home and detained under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The power to detain under section 22 ended when the police decided that no money-laundering proceedings would be brought. Eight days later, a constable formally seized the cash under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and the magistrates authorised continued detention under section 295(2).

The claimant argued that the cash had been seized under the 2002 Act earlier, or that it had to be returned before reseizure. The central issue was whether the later seizure and detention order were lawful.

1. Application refused. The cash had been lawfully seized under section 19 and lawfully detained under section 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 until 1 October 2009.
2. Cash lawfully seized under section 19 could subsequently be reseized under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The requirement to restore property before reseizure, identified in R (on the application of Cook) v SOCA, applied because the original seizure in that case was unlawful. It did not apply here.
3. Section 22 permitted the police a short period to consider whether they could defend proceedings for return of the cash, whether to exercise the section 294 power, and whether to arrange return. The period between 1 October and 9 October was reasonable in the circumstances. Delay could, in an appropriate case, be addressed as an abuse of process.
4. There was no deemed seizure on 1 October. Seizure under section 294 was a formal act which had to be performed by a constable or other specified officer. The constable had personally to consider whether the statutory criteria were satisfied. Those criteria included reasonable grounds for suspecting that the cash was recoverable property and satisfaction of the £1,000 minimum.
5. The criteria were satisfied only when Constable Donoghue became involved on 9 October, when the amount of cash was known and he had grounds for the statutory suspicion. The application to the magistrates was within the relevant 48-hour period, excluding the intervening weekend, and the order under section 295(2) was lawful.
6. Costs: the defendant’s costs were subject to detailed assessment and were not enforceable without leave of the court.

not stated in the judgment.