(1)A person who claims that any cash detained under this Chapter, or any part of it, belongs to him may apply to a magistrates’ court or (in Scotland) the sheriff for the cash or part to be released to him.
(2)The application may be made in the course of proceedings under section 295 or 298 or at any other time.
(3)If it appears to the court or sheriff concerned that—
(a)the applicant was deprived of the cash to which the application relates, or of property which it represents, by unlawful conduct,
(b)the property he was deprived of was not, immediately before he was deprived of it, recoverable property, and
(c)that cash belongs to him,
the court or sheriff may order the cash to which the application relates to be released to the applicant.
(4)If—
(a)the applicant is not the person from whom the cash to which the application relates was seized,
(b)it appears to the court or sheriff that that cash belongs to the applicant,
(c)the court or sheriff is satisfied that the release condition is met in relation to that cash, and
(d)no objection to the making of an order under this subsection has been made by the person from whom that cash was seized,
the court or sheriff may order the cash to which the application relates to be released to the applicant or to the person from whom it was seized.
(5)The release condition is met—
(a)in relation to cash detained under section 295, if the conditions in that section for the detention of the cash are no longer met,
(b)in relation to cash detained under section 297C or 297D, if the cash is not recoverable property and is not intended by a person for use in unlawful conduct, and
(c)in relation to cash detained under 298, if the court or sheriff decides not to make an order under that section in relation to the cash.
Cases considering section 301 6
[2015] EWHC 3824 (Ch) · 26 November 2015Limits
Uses section 301 to demonstrate that Parliament distinguished detention proceedings under section 295 from forfeiture proceedings under section 298. That distinction supported treating the omission of section 298 from section 311 as deliberate (see paras [10], [13]–[14]).
Records the ability of a person claiming ownership of detained cash to apply for its release (see para [10]).
Applies section 301(2) as evidence that Parliament expressly recognised separate proceedings under sections 295 and 298. That was a reason not to read section 298 into section 311 (see paras [10], [13]–[14]).
Sets out circumstances in which a court may order release of cash to a claimant or the person from whom it was seized; it did not displace the detention restriction in section 298(4) while forfeiture proceedings remained pending (see para [10]).
[2012] EWHC 2990 (Admin) · 17 October 2012Defines
The court treats each finance company’s application asserting ownership and seeking release of the detained cash as a separate proceeding. Each applicant therefore became a complainant for the purposes of the costs jurisdiction (paras [5], [14]-[16]).
The provision is identified as the basis on which finance companies applied for release of detained cash. The court treated those applicants as complainants under rule 11(2), enabling costs orders in their favour (paras [14]-[16]).
[2010] EWHC 1704 (Ch) · 8 July 2010Interprets
The court explains that a third party claiming ownership may apply to the magistrates’ court for release, but release requires the statutory conditions to be satisfied. The section does not prevent the magistrates from examining ownership, including to guard against collusive applications (see paras [7]; [11]-[13]).
The judgment records that a third-party release application may be made during proceedings under sections 295 or 298, or at another time. The provision is described as part of the statutory procedure (see para [11]).
The court identifies the requirement that the third-party applicant must not be the person from whom the cash was seized. This forms part of the statutory conditions for release (see para [11]).
The court holds that it must appear to the magistrates that the cash belongs to the applicant before release can be ordered. The court must therefore scrutinise ownership and, if necessary, apply property concepts (see paras [11]-[13]).
The court identifies the requirement that detention conditions must no longer be met or, where forfeiture proceedings exist, that no forfeiture order is made. This confirms why the third-party procedure could not bypass the forfeiture proceedings (see para [11]).
The court rejects the suggestion that the subsection prevents magistrates from adjudicating ownership disputes. It merely permits release where the person from whom the cash was seized has made no objection, while the court must still be satisfied of the claimant’s ownership (see paras [12]-[13]).
What each judgment says about section 301 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.
416.Section 301 allows the true owner of detained cash to apply for its release. Two cases are provided for. Subsection (3) relates to a person who claims that some or all of the cash rightfully belongs to him, and he was deprived of it through unlawful conduct. An example of this would be a person who claims that the cash was stolen from him. If the court is satisfied, it may order the applicant’s cash to be released to him.
417.Subsection (4) relates to the case of any other true owner who is not the person from whom the cash was seized. Here, if the court is satisfied, the cash may be released – but only if the person from whom it was seized does not object. That proviso is intended to prevent the court from becoming involved in a complicated ownership dispute between the person from whom the cash was seized and the rightful owner of the cash. Unlike subsection (3) the court will have to be satisfied that the cash is not recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct before it can release to a claimed owner.