Source: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/05/15/eastenders-in-supreme-court-a1p1-filling-in-the-gaps/
Timestamp: 2018-05-22 23:18:20
Document Index: 236528311

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 1']

Eastenders in Supreme Court: A1P1 filling in the gaps – UK Human Rights Blog
May 15, 2014 by David Hart QC
Eastenders in Supreme Court: A1P1 filling in the gaps
Barnes v. The Eastenders Group [2014] UKSC 26 read judgment
Not Albert Square, but it could be. The Crown Prosecution Service suspect two individuals of a massive duty/VAT fraud in their cash and carry businesses. The CPS go to the Crown Court (in the absence of the individuals) and get an order to appoint a receiver (i.e. a paid manager) to run the affairs of companies (Eastenders) in which the individuals are involved, as well as a restraint order against the individuals. Both receivership and restraint orders are set aside some months later by the Court of Appeal, on the basis that the HMRC investigator’s statements were largely “broad and unsupported assertions”. Problem: by then the receiver had run up £772,547 in fees.
Simple issue. Who bears those fees? The receiver, the CPS or the companies against whom the order was made? And A1P1 (the right to possessions) made the difference.
As Lord Toulson wryly observed about the lower courts’ approaches
the question has been considered by four judges who have arrived at three different answers.
The problem, as often, is that the statute (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) assumed everything would be done by the book, and did not (except in strong circumstances – “serious default” by e.g. the CPS ) deal with what happened when it did not happen like that. Except for this provision, POCA contained no express power to make the prosecutor pay.
The starting point was the common law, under which a court-appointed receiver is entitled to look to the assets he manages for his costs. But the problem here is that the assets belonged to companies who were not defendants or indeed prospective defendants.
The Supreme Court was thus asked to consider whether that common-law rule was compatible with A1P1.
Underhill J had decided that it would be a breach of the companies’ A1P1 rights if they had to bear the costs out of their assets. He went on to decide that section 3 of HRA enabled him to interpret POCA so that the court had the power to interpret POCA in such a way that the CPS picked up the tab.
The CA disagreed, and ordered the receiver to bear his own costs. Laws LJ started by pointing out that the Crown Court order had the force of law until set aside, and the setting aside could not retrospectively deprive the receiver of his right to remuneration under it: see this principle in my recent post on the Tchenguiz litigation against the SFO about unlawful search warrants.
The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning by Laws LJ. But it preferred Underhill J’s conclusion that the CPS should pay the bill, albeit for slightly different reasons.
The SC struck the fair balance required by A1P1 in favour of the companies over the general interest of the community in investigating fraud and preserving assets potentially obtained through fraud. It then observed that the receiver had A1P1 rights by virtue of his common-law lien (or right to be paid from the assets) which the court should also respect. As Lord Toulson put it at [96]:
Unless it is within the power of the court to ensure that the receiver receives his recompense for which the lien is a security by some other means, the court will be left in the invidious position of violating the companies’ A1P1 rights if the receiver’s application is allowed and violating the receiver’s A1P1 rights if it is refused.
The Supreme Court disagreed with Underhill J that a power to charge the CPS could be found in POCA. However, it construed the relationship between the CPS and the receiver as giving rise to a right to claim in unjust enrichment, because the CPS had requested such work and there had been a failure of the basis on which the receiver was asked and agreed to do its work, because the receiver’s lien has been defeated.
The reasoning is necessarily complex (we have not blogged much on UKHRB about a receiver’s lien, for good reason) but the message is simple. A1PI stopped the companies from bearing over £750,000 of costs which at common law they would have borne. And A1P1 doubtless helped the Supreme Court to fashion a remedy for the receiver out of some abstruse law on unjust enrichment. As will be seen from the list of posts below, it is by no means the first time that the courts have made sure that an innocent party is not deprived of a remedy for the consequences of another’s unlawfulness.
Just when you thought they were extinct – human rights environmental case succeed
This entry was posted in Criminal, Damages, In the news, Protocol 1 Art. 1 | Peaceful enjoyment of property, Public/Private and tagged a1p1, eastenders, hra damages claim. Bookmark the permalink.
← Bad and Very Bad judges
Golf course judicial review case reversed on appeal →
This blog is by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. The blog's editorial team is:
Editorial Team: Rosalind English, Angus McCullough QC, David Hart QC, Martin Downs and Jim Duffy.
Can the Grenfell Inquiry be a truly modern public inquiry?
The Round Up: Grenfell, lost DVDs, and a Deputy Judge who erred in law.
Chief Coroner publishes new guidance following Mary Hassell JR
10 human rights cases that defined 2015
Browse by legal topic Select Category adoption (1) article 8 (22) BLOG POSTS (2,609) 1COR (36) Blog news (83) Case law (855) Case comments (502) Case summaries (445) Features (62) In the news (2,020) Lectures (14) Poor reporting (51) Roundup (180) CONVENTION RIGHTS (1,157) Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression (249) Art. 11 | Freedom of Association (31) Art. 12 | Right to Marry / Found Family (27) Art. 14 | Anti-Discrimination (104) Art. 2 | Right to life (106) Art. 3 | Torture / Inhumane Treatment (157) Art. 5 | Right to Liberty (90) Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial (324) Art. 7 | Retrospective Punishment (8) Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family (386) Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion (74) Article 1 | ECHR jurisdiction (19) Article 13 | Effective remedy (20) Article 4 | Anti-Slavery (7) Protocol 1 Art. 1 | Peaceful enjoyment of property (80) Protocol 1 Art. 3 | Free elections (42) Protocol 2 Art. 1 | Right to education (16) detention (7) environmental information (5) guantanamo (2) investigatory powers bill (3) investigatory powers tribunal (2) LEGAL TOPICS (1,493) Agriculture (14) Animals (19) Bill of Rights (88) Children (115) Company/Commercial (35) Costs and Procedure (52) Court of Protection (11) Criminal (203) Damages (56) Defamation / Libel (45) Disciplinary Proceedings (18) Discrimination (57) Education (25) Employment (56) Environment (179) European (353) Family (105) Freedom of Information (99) Housing (26) Immigration/Extradition (151) Inquests and Inquiries (56) International (159) Judges and Juries (112) Licensing (3) Margin of Appreciation (66) Media (70) Medical (105) Mental Health (56) Pensions (2) Personal Injury (21) Police (70) Politics / Public Order (253) Prisons (74) Property (23) Public/Private (54) Religion (77) Scotland (25) Secret justice (42) Social Care (57) Spending cuts (22) Tax (6) Technology (68) Terrorism (133) VAT (1) Northern Ireland (5) parliament (3) ripa (2) united states (2)
Browse by month Select Month May 2018 (13) April 2018 (14) March 2018 (16) February 2018 (22) January 2018 (8) December 2017 (17) November 2017 (16) October 2017 (10) September 2017 (8) August 2017 (9) July 2017 (15) June 2017 (22) May 2017 (16) April 2017 (10) March 2017 (16) February 2017 (13) January 2017 (13) December 2016 (4) November 2016 (20) October 2016 (18) September 2016 (16) August 2016 (8) July 2016 (15) June 2016 (11) May 2016 (15) April 2016 (14) March 2016 (10) February 2016 (24) January 2016 (13) December 2015 (9) November 2015 (21) October 2015 (28) September 2015 (18) August 2015 (15) July 2015 (22) June 2015 (24) May 2015 (24) April 2015 (18) March 2015 (20) February 2015 (26) January 2015 (18) December 2014 (24) November 2014 (17) October 2014 (26) September 2014 (11) August 2014 (13) July 2014 (18) June 2014 (18) May 2014 (15) April 2014 (20) March 2014 (21) February 2014 (20) January 2014 (18) December 2013 (27) November 2013 (30) October 2013 (46) September 2013 (26) August 2013 (17) July 2013 (31) June 2013 (37) May 2013 (28) April 2013 (39) March 2013 (38) February 2013 (32) January 2013 (41) December 2012 (30) November 2012 (38) October 2012 (42) September 2012 (37) August 2012 (18) July 2012 (33) June 2012 (33) May 2012 (48) April 2012 (38) March 2012 (50) February 2012 (46) January 2012 (44) December 2011 (28) November 2011 (34) October 2011 (41) September 2011 (44) August 2011 (29) July 2011 (42) June 2011 (47) May 2011 (45) April 2011 (43) March 2011 (43) February 2011 (47) January 2011 (41) December 2010 (53) November 2010 (63) October 2010 (41) September 2010 (46) August 2010 (38) July 2010 (51) June 2010 (49) May 2010 (44) April 2010 (52) March 2010 (17) February 2010 (11) January 2010 (9) December 2009 (1) November 2009 (3) September 2009 (1) May 2009 (1)
Ravi Low-Beer on Supreme Court: unfairness/equa…
Rosalind English on Invasive naso-gastric feeding…
JohnAllman.UK on Invasive naso-gastric feeding…
Stella H Howell on Should civil partnerships only…
peakcrew on Should civil partnerships only…
Daniel Smith on Win (for now) for app develope…
otto1357 on Legal personhood for non-human…
UKHRB on Twitter
Law Pod UK on Twitter
Art. 2 | Right to life Art. 3 | Torture / Inhumane Treatment Art. 5 | Right to Liberty Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial Art. 8 | Right to Privacy/Family Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression Art. 14 | Anti-Discrimination Bill of Rights Blog news Case comments Case law Case summaries Children Criminal Environment European Family Freedom of Information Immigration/Extradition International In the news Judges and Juries Medical Politics / Public Order Prisons Protocol 1 Art. 1 | Peaceful enjoyment of property Religion Roundup Terrorism
Join 73,722 other followers