R v Jacqueline Marie Stewart

In receivership proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, a person cannot use the receivership hearing to repeat or challenge a prior determination of interests under section 10A where they had a reasonable opportunity to make representations and no serious risk of injustice is shown. The bar applies even if the person could not attend the receivership hearing, and an adjournment serves no purpose where the proposed representations are barred. A third-party appeal against the section 10A determination is extinguished when the prosecutor applies for appointment of a receiver. Fresh evidence should not be admitted where it could not afford a ground for allowing the appeal.

The applicant sought an extension of 61 days and leave to appeal against an enforcement receivership order made by HHJ Bury at Kingston upon Hull Crown Court under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The order followed Recorder Kelbrick’s determination under section 10A rejecting her claimed interests in a diamond ring and monies connected with Ash Lane and The Arcade. She argued that medical unfitness denied her a reasonable opportunity to make representations in the receivership proceedings. She also sought to reopen the earlier determination and admit fresh evidence. The central issues were whether her earlier appeal had lapsed, whether the receivership safeguards permitted repetition of her submissions, and whether the proposed evidence could support an arguable appeal.

The application for leave to appeal was refused. The court was prepared to accept that the applicant’s brother’s death provided a good reason for extending time, and would probably have granted the extension. Despite her apparent wish to withdraw, the court gave judgment on the merits because it had already examined the papers and wished to avoid any later suggestion that she had been denied a fair opportunity to pursue a meritorious appeal.

1. Under section 31 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, an appeal against a section 10A determination is available only where the statutory conditions concerning reasonable opportunity to make representations or serious risk of injustice are met. Section 31(8) prevents such an appeal once the prosecutor applies for appointment of a receiver. The applicant’s earlier appeal had therefore lapsed.
2. Even if the earlier appeal had not lapsed, there was no arguable error of law in Recorder Kelbrick’s determination. The applicant had given evidence, been cross-examined and made submissions. The Recorder considered her evidence and submissions and was entitled to reject her claim to the ring.
3. On an application to appoint a receiver under section 50, section 51(8) required persons holding interests in the property to have a reasonable opportunity to make representations before powers to manage, realise or deal with property were conferred. Section 51(8)(b) prevented representations inconsistent with the section 10A determination unless its statutory exceptions applied. The applicant had already made full representations, and no serious risk of injustice was shown. Her inability to attend the later hearing did not alter that conclusion, and an adjournment would have served no purpose.
4. The applicant could not reopen the Ash Lane issue. She had been served with the relevant High Court proceedings but had not applied to be joined, and the Recorder was entitled to proceed on the basis of the High Court determination.
5. The proposed statements concerning the circumstances of R v Wilder [2022] EWCA Crim 842 were essentially opinions about Mr Wilder’s conviction and could not provide any ground for allowing the appeal. It was therefore inappropriate to admit them under Article 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Appeals Under Part 2 Order 2003), regardless of whether the other admission conditions were satisfied.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the application for leave to appeal and declined to admit the proposed fresh evidence.
• Kingston upon Hull Crown Court: HHJ Bury appointed an enforcement receiver under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Recorder Kelbrick had earlier rejected the applicant’s third-party claims under section 10A.
• Single Judge: Refused leave to appeal on 2 January 2025.