Michael John Harvey, R (on the application of) v Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates' Court

A magistrates’ court must formally record and notify the outcome of an application for an account freezing order, even where no substantive freezing order is made. The duty applies to an application dismissed for procedural reasons and is not confined to orders that are granted or extended. The record should identify the application and, where appropriate, briefly state why it was dismissed or why no order was made. A failure to produce and communicate that record may breach the statutory procedural duty, the requirement of a fair and public hearing under article 6 ECHR, and public law standards of rationality and good administration.

The claimant sought judicial review of the magistrates’ court’s failure to produce an order recording the outcome of an application for a further account freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The application was dismissed because the interested party had used the wrong statutory procedure and had not given the required notice. The claimant was absent from the hearing and was not provided with any formal record. His bank continued to freeze the account, and he required documentary confirmation for related civil proceedings.

The central issue was whether the court was required to draw up and serve an order recording the dismissal or other outcome of the application.

1. Claim allowed. The magistrates’ court was required to produce an order recording the outcome of the hearing on 20 January 2023 and to provide it to the claimant and other appropriate parties.
2. Under rule 3(7) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Freezing and Forfeiture of Money in Bank and Building Society Accounts) Rules 2017, the duty to give notice of, and a copy of, the order applies to an application under section 303Z1 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It is not limited to cases in which a substantive freezing order is made or extended.
3. The court’s decision on every such application must be recorded and made available to affected persons. A brief order such as “the application is dismissed” or “no order on the application” is sufficient, but it is appropriate to identify the application and briefly indicate whether dismissal resulted from procedural irregularity or a substantive determination.
4. Article 6 ECHR requires a person whose rights are being determined to receive formal notification of the outcome. Public pronouncement, even if it occurred, would not remove that requirement, particularly where the person was absent. The form of public delivery may vary, consistently with Pretto v Italy, but the decision must be formally communicated.
5. Refusing to draw up an order was in any event irrational and disproportionate in the circumstances. The claimant needed the document because the bank had continued the account freeze and because it was required for related civil proceedings. The court staff’s failure to respond to his correspondence also amounted to a flagrant breach of good administration standards.

First-instance judicial review claim. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.