Minshall v HM Revenue and Customs & Ors

A later finding by the ECtHR that domestic proceedings took too long does not, without more, reverse a final domestic order or make its enforcement unlawful. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, ECtHR jurisprudence may inform domestic interpretation, but an international judgment has no direct effect that discharges a domestic court order. A person bound by such an order must comply until it is set aside by a court with relevant jurisdiction. The reasonable-time guarantee in Article 6(1) is not a limitation period or precondition to enforcing substantive criminal law. Consequently, payment under a valid confiscation order did not support restitution, and imprisonment under a specific lawful warrant was not false imprisonment. A hypothetical, unpleaded human-rights damages claim could not affect the appeal.

The appellant challenged the striking out of claims against HMRC and other respondents for restitution of £80,000 paid under a confiscation order and damages for two days’ imprisonment during enforcement of that order.

A previous domestic judicial review had upheld enforcement. The ECtHR later found a violation of Article 6(1) because of delay before the House of Lords determined the statutory issue, awarding €2,000 in just satisfaction: Minshall v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 36. The appellant argued that this finding displaced the domestic decision, rendered the payments recoverable, and made the imprisonment unlawful. The central issue was whether the international judgment affected the validity and domestic conclusiveness of the existing orders.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the strike-out of the restitution and false-imprisonment claims.

1. The ECtHR application was made on the plane of international law. It was not an appeal against the final domestic decision upholding enforcement of the confiscation order. The ECtHR’s finding concerned delay before the order’s validity was finally determined and did not rule that subsequent enforcement violated the Convention.
2. At domestic law level, the enforcement issue was res judicata. The appellant remained bound by the confiscation order and the decision upholding its enforcement. Under Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97, a person subject to a direct court order must comply, even if its validity is doubted, unless an appropriate court discharges or reverses it. The ECtHR lacked that domestic jurisdiction, and no application had been made to the appropriate appellate courts.
3. Although Convention rights may be interpreted with assistance from clear and constant ECtHR jurisprudence, under section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 an ECtHR ruling does not itself reverse domestic orders. Article 6(1)’s reasonable-time obligation is not a limitation period or a precondition to substantive enforcement: Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68.
4. The restitution claim disclosed no unjust factor. The £80,000 was paid pursuant to a valid and enforceable court order, and the later ECtHR decision did not show that the money was not owing in domestic law. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2006] UKHL 49 was distinguishable because it involved no direct court order and concerned European Union law capable of having direct domestic effect.
5. The false-imprisonment claim also failed. A specific lawful warrant provides a complete defence to detention under its authority: Zenati v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWCA Civ 80. R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p. Evans (No 2) [2001] 2 AC 19 concerned detention beyond the period authorised by the order and did not apply to this case.
6. No human-rights damages claim had been pleaded, and no application to amend or extend time had been made. That hypothetical claim could not undermine the order striking out the pleaded claims.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 16 July 2015, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order striking out the claims.
• Chancery Division: A Deputy High Court Judge, by order dated 12 November 2013, struck out the claim for failure to disclose a viable cause of action.
• Administrative Court: Pitchford J dismissed the appellant’s judicial review challenge to enforcement of the confiscation order in R (Minshall) v Marylebone Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 2800 (Admin); [2010] 1 WLR 590, and permission to appeal was refused.