The Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police, R (on the application of) v Lincoln Magistrates' Court

An application for release of detained cash under section 297 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 need not always be formally expressed, made in writing or supported by sworn evidence. The court must first determine whether the statutory or procedural requirement is a strict bright-line condition whose breach invalidates the procedure. If it is not, the court may consider substantial compliance or waive strict compliance.

Prejudice is relevant both to construction of the requirement and to whether substantial compliance has occurred. An oral request for immediate release may constitute a valid section 297 application where the opposing party has presented its full case, the statutory purpose has been met, and proceeding informally causes no unfairness or irrationality.

The Chief Constable challenged the Lincoln Magistrates’ order returning cash seized during a police investigation. The Magistrates had refused an application under section 295 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to extend detention and had ordered immediate release under section 297.

The challenge alleged that Mrs Sharma had made no section 297 application, that the Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 required a written application supported by sworn evidence, and that any waiver of those requirements was irrational or unfair. The issues were whether an informal application had been made, whether strict non-compliance was fatal, and whether the Magistrates had acted lawfully in treating the application as substantially compliant.

1. An application was made. Mrs Sharma’s advocate sought the immediate return of the cash as a separate matter from resisting the section 295 extension. Section 297 was the only power permitting immediate release while the cash remained detained. The Magistrates therefore properly understood the request as an application under section 297 and made their order under that provision.
2. Non-compliance was not automatically fatal. Applying the approach in R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49, as explained in A1 Properties (Sunderland) v Tudor Studios [2024] UKSC 27, the question is whether the particular requirement operates strictly as a bright-line rule. If it does, waiver and substantial compliance are unavailable. If it does not, the court may determine whether the steps taken substantially complied with the requirement or whether strict compliance should be waived.
3. The requirement for writing and sworn evidence appeared in procedural rules, while section 297 itself required only an application. The purposes of notice and evidence could be achieved informally in some circumstances, particularly where the section 295 application had been fully argued and evidence had been tested.
4. Prejudice was relevant at both stages. It could indicate that a requirement was intended to be bright-line, and, if not, could show that the particular steps did not substantially comply. Here the police had presented their full case, the same material supported the later forfeiture application, and requiring a formal second hearing would have given the prosecutor a second opportunity on material already rejected. The Magistrates’ conclusion that there was no material unfairness or prejudice was rational and lawful.
5. The claim was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. Permission was refused on paper by Jay J and granted on oral renewal by Mr Justice Eyre on 15 July 2025. The claim was dismissed.