Marsden & Anor v Leicester Magistrates Court

In assessing whether confiscation-enforcement proceedings were concluded within a reasonable time under Article 6, the court must consider the case as a whole and all relevant circumstances. These include the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct, the conduct of the authorities and what is at stake. Delay attributable to the court or prosecution is relevant but does not automatically establish a breach. A defendant’s continuing liability to pay does not remove the Article 6 protection. However, where the defendant could bring the proceedings to an end, or progress them, by taking steps towards payment and does nothing, that conduct may raise the threshold for proving a breach. Judicial review is confined to whether the magistrates’ court’s conclusion was legally erroneous or perverse.

The claimants had been convicted at Northampton Crown Court and made subject to substantial confiscation orders, each carrying a six-year term of imprisonment in default. After delays in the confiscation appeal and enforcement process, the Leicester Magistrates’ Court dismissed their applications to stay enforcement and committed them to serve the default terms.

The claimants sought judicial review, contending that the delay breached their Article 6 right to determination within a reasonable time. The magistrates’ court had identified avoidable delay in listing the renewed applications for leave to appeal and in seeking enforcement, but concluded that the proceedings, considered overall, had been completed within a reasonable time. The issue was whether that conclusion was legally erroneous or perverse.

1. Outcome. Permission to seek judicial review was granted, but the hearing was treated as the substantive application and both claims were dismissed. Mrs Justice Swift agreed with the reasons of Lord Justice Laws.
2. Article 6’s reasonable-time requirement applies to confiscation-enforcement proceedings. The assessment must consider all the circumstances, including the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct, the conduct of the relevant state authorities and the importance of the proceedings to the applicant. The fact that a released prisoner may be returned to custody is an important consideration: [7].
3. The court accepted that a defendant’s continuing liability to satisfy a confiscation order cannot, by itself, deprive the defendant of the Article 6 protection. However, the defendant’s conduct remains relevant. Where the defendant can bring the proceedings to a close, or take steps towards doing so, by satisfying the order or engaging with payment, but does nothing, that circumstance raises the already high threshold for establishing a breach. The claimants’ knowledge that the Crown intended to enforce the orders was also relevant to the impact of the proceedings on them: [14]-[16].
4. The periods of avoidable delay had to be assessed in the context of the proceedings as a whole. The case’s complexity, the agreed or otherwise proper adjournments, the Crown’s continuing pursuit of enforcement, and the fact that the claimants had been released before the confiscation orders were made were all relevant. The identified delay did not make the magistrates’ overall conclusion perverse or legally erroneous: [5]-[6], [17]-[18].
5. Because the magistrates’ court was itself Article 6 compliant, the Administrative Court’s judicial-review task was to determine whether the decision was perverse or involved an error of law. The court was not required to exercise a more intensive merits jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act 1998: [8].

1. Leicester Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Temperley dismissed the claimants’ applications to stay enforcement and committed them to serve the six-year default terms.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The linked judicial-review claims were dismissed after permission was granted and the hearing treated as substantive.