Richard Taylor Assistant Superintendent of Police v Natalie Natasha Spring and another (Trinidad and Tobago)

A Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order requires only reasonable suspicion of the statutory matters, not proof of a specified offence or a conviction. The suspicion is assessed when the application is made, and an investigation begun before commencement may be continued or revived for that purpose. The Civil Asset Recovery and Management and Unexplained Wealth Act No 8 of 2019 applies to property linked to pre-commencement criminal conduct. A preliminary order may be made against the personal representative of a deceased person’s estate. Difficulties in answering questions about the deceased’s wealth can be addressed when considering revocation or whether to make a final order. A procedural failure to appoint the representative before proceedings may be cured by the court’s discretion.

An acting Assistant Superintendent of Police obtained an ex parte Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order on 10 December 2019 against Natalie Spring and the Estate of Sheldon Spring.

The High Court set the order aside on the grounds that the suspicion was based on pre-commencement investigations and that a preliminary order could not be made against a deceased person’s estate. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in Civil Appeal No P232 of 2020 on 31 January 2023, reinstated the order and remitted the matter for consideration of an Unexplained Wealth Order. The appellants appealed to the Board on the sufficiency and timing of the suspicion, retrospectivity, and the estate issue.

The appeal was dismissed. The Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order remained reinstated, and the Board cured the procedural irregularity concerning representation of the estate.

1. Issue 1. Section 58(1) required reasonable suspicion of four matters: that total wealth exceeded lawfully obtained wealth; exceeded five hundred thousand dollars; was owned or effectively controlled by the respondents; and was obtained through a specified offence. The affidavit evidence was ample. Reasonable suspicion is lower than reasonable belief, as explained in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2004] EWCA Civ 1123; [2005] 1 WLR 414. The Board owed no deference on the factual issue because the trial judge had made no clear findings on it.

2. Section 58(1)(d) does not require proof that a specified offence was actually committed, that it was committed by the respondent, or that there has been a conviction. The regime is non-conviction based.

3. Issue 2. The relevant time for assessing reasonable suspicion was when the application was made. The words during the course of an investigation required a broad interpretation. An investigation begun before commencement could be continuing or revived when the application was made, and its original purpose of supporting forfeiture was consistent with an investigation into specified offences.

4. The Act operates retrospectively in relation to criminal conduct and property acquired before commencement. Section 4(1) makes this express. Section 65(2)(b), although directed to a final order, logically applies the same temporal approach at the preliminary stage.

5. Issue 3. A preliminary order can only be made against a living person, but that person may be the personal representative of a deceased person whose estate contains unexplained wealth. Difficulties in answering questions about the deceased’s wealth can be raised on revocation or when deciding whether to make the final order. They do not create an absolute bar.

6. Proceedings against the estate before appointment of a representative contravened CPR rule 21.7(4). The irregularity was curable in the exercise of the court’s procedural discretion. The Board therefore back-dated the appointment of the administratrix ad litem to 9 December 2019, before the application and the ex parte order.

• Privy Council: In [2026] UKPC 18, the appeal was dismissed. The Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order was maintained and the appointment of the administratrix ad litem was back-dated.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: In Civil Appeal No P232 of 2020, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s revocation order was overturned, the Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order was reinstated and the matter was remitted for consideration of an Unexplained Wealth Order.
• High Court of Trinidad and Tobago: In Claim No UWO 001-2019, the Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order was set aside on 7 September 2020.