SIMON PRICE v CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

An Administrative Court application cannot be used to challenge a confiscation order where the statutory route lies through the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. A certificate of inadequacy cannot relitigate issues decided when the confiscation order was made, and a further application requires a material change of circumstances. A restraint order may continue where there remains a sufficient and arguable interest in realisable property. Residence outside the jurisdiction does not invalidate the order where its territorial enforcement conditions have been met.

Dr Simon Price applied to discharge a confiscation order made in 2007 under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and a restraint order made in 2006. He argued that the confiscation order had been made under the wrong legislation and without adequate protection for third-party property interests. He also challenged the continuation and territorial effect of the restraint order, particularly in relation to property in France.

The court considered the effect of earlier decisions, the proper appellate routes, the possible relevance of a Court of Justice decision concerning third-party participation in confiscation proceedings, and whether a certificate of inadequacy could be granted. The central issues were whether the Administrative Court had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and whether any material change justified reopening matters previously determined.

1. Confiscation order. The application to discharge the confiscation order was dismissed. Any challenge to the order or sentence had to proceed through the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, including by a reference from the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, or, in very narrow circumstances, under Crim PR 36.15. The Administrative Court could not determine the substantive challenges at first instance.
2. Applicable legislation. The second offence covered conduct beginning before 24 March 2003. Under Article 1(3) of the 2003 Order, it was treated as committed on the earliest date indicted. Article 3(1) therefore excluded Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, while Article 10(1)(e) preserved the application of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.
3. Third-party rights. The decision in Joined Cases C-845/19 and C-836/19 concerned confiscation which transferred property to the state and the absence of a right for affected third parties to participate. Its relevance to the present financial confiscation order required consideration of standing, the nature of the order, the effect of the statutory protections for third parties, and the particular order said to affect their rights.
4. Certificate of inadequacy. An application under section 17 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 could not be used to reopen matters determined at the confiscation hearing. A further application after earlier certificates of inadequacy had been refused required a material change of circumstances, which had not been shown.
5. Restraint order. The restraint order could continue because the French property supplied a sufficient basis for the CPS’s arguable claim that Dr Price had a realisable interest. The order did not restrain Mr Christopher Bond from dealing with his own 50 per cent share, but the property as a whole could remain restrained pending enforcement and accounting. The residence of interested persons in France was no bar once the order’s enforcement conditions there had been met. The applications were dismissed and certified as totally without merit under CPR 23.12.

The judgment records earlier decisions concerning the same confiscation and restraint orders, including appeals and applications in the criminal and Administrative Courts. Those decisions were treated as binding or determinative of the issues raised. This court dismissed the present applications.