YDG & Anor, R. v

Once a Crown Court has made an unqualified order that a hearing is a preparatory hearing under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, it cannot revoke that order when giving its ruling. The Act gives no such power, and revocation cannot be used to prevent an appeal from the ruling on the question of law.

A certificate issued in confiscation proceedings under Drug Trafficking Act 1994 is effective only in relation to the person and proceedings for which it was issued. The six-year limit on reassessment of that person's proceeds does not prevent prosecution of another person for dealing with provable proceeds exceeding the certified sum.

X was convicted in 2001 of a drugs conspiracy. In ensuing confiscation proceedings under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, the court issued a certificate for £100,000 and made a drug trafficking order for that sum.

YDG and ZSB were later charged with money laundering between 2003 and 2010. The Crown alleged that most counts concerned proceeds of X's earlier conspiracy. They sought to stay the prosecution as an abuse of process, contending that the certificate conclusively fixed X's proceeds as against the world. Alternatively, they contended that prosecution was unfair on the particular facts.

The Crown Court treated the hearing as a preparatory hearing under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, rejected the arguments, and purported to revoke that designation in its written ruling. The central issues were whether that revocation was effective and whether the certificate barred the prosecution.

1. Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The judge had clearly and unconditionally ordered that the hearing continue as a preparatory hearing. The conditions for that order were met because the appellants sought determination of a question of law under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

2. Once that order had been made, the judge could not revoke it in the written ruling. The Act conferred no such power. By analogy with R v C [2011] Crim LR 396, a preparatory-hearing status cannot be manipulated after the relevant ruling; revocation here would improperly have prevented an appeal.

3. The certificate issued under section 5(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 did not bind persons other than X. Nothing in the language or purpose of the Act made it a determination effective against the world. The statutory limit on reassessing X's proceeds after six years supplied finality for X alone. It did not prevent criminal proceedings against another person who was alleged to have knowingly dealt with proceeds exceeding the certified amount.

4. Section 49(2) did not assist the appellants. Its reference to confiscation orders did not give the earlier certificate any wider effect. The Act's punitive purpose supported prosecution of those who participated in drug trafficking or laundered its proceeds.

5. The alternative abuse-of-process contention depended on the particular facts. For the reasons contained in the unpublished annex, the court held that the continuation of the proceedings was not unfair.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the Crown Court could not revoke its preparatory-hearing order, while upholding its rejection of the abuse-of-process arguments.
• Crown Court: The judge ordered the hearing to be treated as a preparatory hearing under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, rejected the appellants' arguments, and purported to revoke the preparatory-hearing direction in the written ruling.