Price, R v (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Snaresbrook

Relief from sanctions should generally be considered through the three-stage approach in Denton v TH White Limited. The merits of the underlying claim are ordinarily irrelevant, but may be considered where the claim is so strong or weak that summary judgment would be appropriate. Relief should not be granted where it would revive proceedings that are bound to fail.

For confiscation orders made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, the certification regime in the 2014 Regulations may apply to property which is not traceable to criminal conduct. A case stated is not the appropriate route for challenging a confiscation order forming part of a sentence imposed on indictment.

The claimant sought reinstatement of judicial review proceedings struck out after failure to comply with an unless order requiring service of complete documents and confirmation of compliance.

The underlying challenge concerned a certificate issued by the Crown Court under the Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No.36) Regulations 2014 in relation to the claimant’s interest in property in France. The claimant argued that the property could not be treated as proceeds of crime because it could not be traced to drug-trafficking proceeds.

The issues were whether relief from sanctions should be granted, whether the proposed challenge was procedurally appropriate, and whether it had any realistic prospect of success.

1. Application dismissed. The claim was struck out for breach of an unless order. Even assuming that the breach was neither serious nor significant, relief from sanctions was refused because reinstatement would revive proceedings which were bound to fail.
2. An order remains binding unless and until it is set aside. It was no answer that the interested party might already have possessed much of the relevant information, or that the missing documents could have been reconstructed. Those matters could bear on the seriousness of the breach, but did not justify non-compliance with the order.
3. The applicable approach to relief from sanctions comprised the three stages identified in Denton v TH White Limited: seriousness or significance of the breach, any good reason for it, and all the circumstances. The merits should not generally be investigated at this stage. An exception applies where the underlying claim is so strong or weak that it would be appropriate to resolve it summarily. That exception was recognised in HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Apex Global Management Ltd and another and applied in R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
4. The substantive challenge was hopeless. Following R v Moss, the 2014 Regulations could apply to “clean” property within a value-based confiscation regime. Certification did not require an evidential tracing exercise to establish that the particular asset derived from criminal conduct. The Regulations also applied to saved confiscation orders made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.
5. The case stated procedure was inappropriate. A confiscation order formed part of the sentence imposed by the Crown Court on indictment, and any appeal lay to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. In any event, the proposed challenge would fail on its substance.
6. The judicial review proceedings were therefore misconceived, with no prospect even of permission. The application for relief from sanctions was dismissed.

This was an application in judicial review proceedings to reinstate a claim struck out for breach of an unless order. The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision in the present reinstatement proceedings.