Halim, R v

Under section 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the question whether exceptional circumstances justify postponement beyond two years from conviction requires a broad assessment of the whole procedural history. The court must balance prompt confiscation proceedings against practical listing and timetabling difficulties. A court may retrospectively find that exceptional circumstances existed when it adjourned before expiry, although it did not address the issue then.

A prosecution failure at a later hearing must not be assessed in isolation where earlier defence delay, inadequate time estimates and listing constraints materially prevented a hearing within time. Any compensable prejudice from an adjournment may be addressed by costs or an appropriate abatement.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a class A drug with intent to supply. Following a trial of the issue, the Crown Court found that the supply was commercial and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Confiscation proceedings were repeatedly delayed, principally through the defendant's failures to comply with directions. The statutory two-year period from conviction expired on 25 February 2015. A confiscation hearing listed on 17 August 2015 did not proceed because of late defence material, an inadequate time estimate, earlier cases in the list and the prosecution's incomplete preparation.

On 12 November 2015, HH Judge Gower QC refused retrospectively to find exceptional circumstances under section 14(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and dismissed the prosecution's confiscation application. The prosecution appealed. The central issue was whether the whole history justified an exceptional-circumstances finding permitting postponement beyond the statutory period.

1. The appeal was allowed. The Crown Court's refusal to extend time was wrong. Under section 32(2)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Court of Appeal directed the Crown Court to proceed afresh under section 6.

2. The expression exceptional circumstances in section 14(4) requires a broad, evaluative approach. The court must consider the entire history of the confiscation proceedings. It must balance the requirement for resolution within two years of conviction with the practical problems of listing and timetabling. The statutory purpose is that effective confiscation should not be defeated solely by technical timing failures.

3. Following Johal [2014] 1WLR 146 and R v T [2010] EWCA Crim 2703, a court may retrospectively conclude that exceptional circumstances existed when it adjourned a case before expiry of the permitted period, despite not considering the issue at that time.

4. The judge erred by treating the prosecution's lack of readiness on 17 August 2015 as decisive. The defence had caused substantial earlier delay, including repeated breaches of directions. Its late material, the complex documentation, the late start caused by other listed cases and an inadequate one-day estimate meant that the hearing could not realistically have concluded that day even if the prosecution had been fully prepared.

5. The prosecution was properly criticised for its preparation and choice of counsel, but that fault did not remove the exceptional circumstances arising from the whole history. There was no unfairness requiring dismissal. Any additional privately funded defence costs, or other justified prejudice, could be addressed by a costs order or abatement in the eventual confiscation proceedings.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Allowed the prosecution's appeal and directed the Crown Court to proceed afresh under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

• Croydon Crown Court. On 12 November 2015, HH Judge Gower QC refused retrospectively to find exceptional circumstances under section 14(4) and dismissed the prosecution's confiscation application.