Davis v Leicestershire Constabulary

An application for compensation under section 302(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is regulated as a complaint from the moment it is lodged. The six-month limitation period in section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 therefore applies. The matter of complaint arises when forfeiture proceedings are withdrawn and the cash is returned, rather than when the police later communicate their decision on compensation. The statutory time limit is strict and cannot be extended under the 1980 Act or otherwise.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by Deputy District Judge Price at Leicester Magistrates' Court of his application for compensation under section 302 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Cash had been seized and retained, forfeiture proceedings had been commenced, and the cash was later returned when those proceedings were withdrawn.

The magistrates' court held that rule 11 of the Magistrates' Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 treated the application as a complaint and that the six-month period under section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 ran from withdrawal of the forfeiture proceedings. The issues were whether section 127(1) applied and when the matter of complaint arose.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court answered both questions in the case stated affirmatively.
2. Rule 11(2) of the Magistrates' Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 provides that proceedings on an application under Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are regulated in the same manner as proceedings on a complaint. The provision deems the application to be a complaint from the moment it is lodged. It cannot be read as applying only after the application has been accepted.
3. The opening words of section 302(1), referring to the absence of a forfeiture order, do not postpone the limitation period until the police communicate a final decision on compensation. Once the cash had been returned and the forfeiture proceedings withdrawn, there was no realistic possibility of a forfeiture order being made.
4. The matter of complaint therefore arose on 14 May 2010, when the forfeiture proceedings were withdrawn. The subsequent application was outside the six-month period in section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
5. The authorities concerning uncertainty about the date on which an information was laid, including Atkinson v the DPP [2005] 1 WLR 96 and Lloyd v Young [1963] Crim LR 703, did not assist the claimant. Applying those principles, failure to comply with the prescribed period was fatal. The time limits were deliberately strict and contained no provision for extension.
6. The court also criticised the disproportionate costs schedule presented against a litigant in person, but the substantive order was that the appeal be dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered both questions affirmatively.
• Leicester Magistrates' Court: Deputy District Judge Price dismissed the compensation complaint as out of time on 28 July 2011.