Campbell v Bromley Magistrates' Court

On a cash-forfeiture application under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the court asks whether the facts in section 298(2) are established: the cash is recoverable property or intended for unlawful conduct. Lawful seizure or detention under sections 294 and 295 is not a gateway to forfeiture, and the basis for each stage need not remain identical. Earlier events may be examined where relevant to the section 298(2) facts. They may not be litigated merely to invalidate the earlier seizure or detention. The appeal was dismissed because the magistrates’ court was entitled to refuse a preliminary hearing confined to the legality of detention.

Police officers seized cash from the appellant during a search and subsequently pursued its detention and forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. During the forfeiture proceedings, the appellant sought preliminary rulings on the lawfulness of the search warrant, arrest, re-seizure and detention. The District Judge refused to address those matters as preliminary issues and ordered forfeiture of £7,770.

Goss J refused permission to apply for judicial review in the Administrative Court: [2015] EWHC 3424 (Admin). The appeal concerned only whether the lawfulness of detention had to be determined before the forfeiture application. It did not challenge the final forfeiture decision.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the legality of the earlier detention was not a preliminary gateway to forfeiture.

1. The statutory scheme proceeds through seizure, detention and forfeiture. Each stage has its own statutory criteria, and the basis of the seizure, detention and forfeiture need not remain the same. Once forfeiture proceedings begin, section 298(4) prevents release under a power conferred by the relevant chapter until the proceedings, including any appeal, are concluded.
2. Following Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tuncel and another [2012] EWHC 402 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 3355, the only issue for the court on a section 298 application is whether the factual conditions in section 298(2) are satisfied. Section 298(1) imposes a temporal limit on the constable’s ability to seek forfeiture. It does not require the cash to have been lawfully seized or properly detained under section 295.
3. This did not make earlier events irrelevant. A respondent may challenge the constable’s evidence, including by cross-examination or defence evidence, where earlier matters are relevant to proving the section 298(2) facts. The respondent may not use the forfeiture hearing simply to litigate the legality of the earlier seizure or detention.
4. R (Merida Oil Traders Ltd) v Central Criminal Court and others [2017] EWHC 747 (Admin) did not require a different result because it concerned sections 295 and 297, not section 298. The Court also agreed with the reasoning in Ho, Ho, Hing and Chin v Lord Advocate 2004 SC 1 concerning the limited scope of section 297 proceedings and the possible availability of judicial review, but those remedial issues were not determinative.
5. Goss J was correct to refuse permission. The appeal therefore failed and was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The appeal from Goss J’s order was dismissed. The Court held that lawful seizure or detention was not a precondition to forfeiture under section 298.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — Goss J refused permission to apply for judicial review of the District Judge’s refusal to hear preliminary arguments on the legality of the detention: [2015] EWHC 3424 (Admin).