Deacon (R on the application of) v Wimbledon Magistrates' Court

Forfeiture proceedings under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 may be advanced on both statutory bases: recoverable property and cash intended for use in unlawful conduct. The court may order forfeiture if satisfied that either basis, or both, is established. A case stated is confined to questions of law or jurisdiction and cannot reopen factual findings. A credibility challenge raises a question of law only where the decision is irrational, a high threshold. The inference that cash derives from unidentified unlawful conduct may be drawn even where the prosecutor’s specific suspected criminal source is not proved.

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by Wimbledon Magistrates' Court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. The Magistrates had ordered forfeiture of nearly £135,000 under section 298(2)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, finding that the cash derived from unidentified unlawful conduct after rejecting the claimant’s explanations and the police’s specific benefit-fraud case.

The claimant proposed questions concerning whether both statutory limbs could be relied upon and whether the Magistrates had wrongly excluded aggregate cash withdrawals. The central issues were whether those questions were frivolous and whether they raised questions of law rather than fact.

1. Application dismissed. The refusal to state a case was lawful. The proposed questions were frivolous within section 111(1) of the Magistrates Court Act.
2. A case stated is available only on a question of law or jurisdiction. It cannot be used to challenge factual findings. The Magistrates could refuse to state a case where the application was frivolous, applying the approach discussed in R v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates' Court ex parte Forest Heath District Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1575.
3. Section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 contains two alternative bases for forfeiture. Its language does not require the prosecutor to rely on only one basis, or prevent the court from considering both. The court may order forfeiture where either basis, or possibly both, is established. The position was supported by Fletcher v The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2013] EWHC 3357 (Admin), Sandhu v The Chief Constable [2019] EWHC 3316 (Admin), and Campbell v Bromley Magistrates Court [2017] EWCA Civ 1161.
4. The first proposed question therefore raised no arguable issue requiring determination by the High Court. The second concerned the Magistrates’ assessment of evidence and credibility. Such a challenge could amount to a question of law only if the findings were irrational. That was a high threshold, which was not approached here.
5. The Magistrates were entitled to reject the claimant’s and her mother’s accounts. Having rejected both those explanations and the police’s specific allegation of benefit fraud, they could infer that the cash derived from some unspecified unlawful activity. That reasoning was analogous to the approach applied in Muneka v Commissioner of Customs & Excise [2005] EWHC 495 (Admin). The inference engaged the money-laundering provisions in Part 7, including section 327, and was sufficient to satisfy section 298(2)(b).
6. Costs followed the event. The claimant was ordered to pay the police £4,500, summarily assessed and payable within 21 days.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Chamberlain J. The application challenged the Magistrates’ refusal dated 7 January 2021 to state a case concerning their forfeiture order of 30 October 2020. The High Court dismissed the judicial review application.