SEPTEMBER 2014 DEVON CHAMBERS IN THE SUPREME COURT 2012 under the Proceeds of Crime According to folk lore, you can wait Act (POCA). He appealed to the a long time for a bus to show up Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). and then two or three turn up at As is required in criminal cases, a once. As with buses - for Devon lengthy advice on appeal was Chambers - so with cases to be drafted containing four grounds heard at the Supreme Court. In the which was lodged, within 28 days, 25 year plus history of Devon in May 2012 for consideration by Chambers, whilst there have been the single judge. plenty of appearances in the Court of Appeal, no member of chambers Leave was finally granted on all has appeared in either the four grounds in December 2012 Supreme Court or its ancestor the and in May 2013 there was a House of Lords. hearing before the full court (Lord Justice Jackson, Mr Justice Wyn Until now. Williams and The Recorder of Preston). The Court unanimously Now Chambers has two cases due dismissed the three substantive to be heard in the Supreme Court grounds of appeal but allowed one in the next eight months. ancillary one (reducing the time to be served in default of payment) The cases couldn’t be more Harvey [2013] EWCA Crim different. One delves into a specific 1104. issue relating to criminal confiscation; the other to a broader One substantive ground of appeal issue relating to the approach of however raised a novel area of law. the courts to a disability In short the issue raised was discrimination defence to in assessing the “whether, residential possession amount of benefit obtained by a proceedings. Their route to the company for the purpose of Supreme Court was similarly very confiscation, any VAT accounted different - highlighting the for and/or paid to HMRC should procedural variations between civil be subtracted from the turnover and criminal cases as they figure prior to any final progress to the highest court in the calculation of the benefit figure.” land. The Court of Appeal considered themselves bound by an earlier The Confiscation Case Court of Appeal case (R-v- Del Basso and Goodwin [2010] EWCA Having been convicted in Truro Crim 1119) which had interpreted Crown Court of multiple charges of POCA as saying that any expenses Handling Stolen Goods, Jack related to the obtaining of the Harvey was made subject to a £1.2 proceeds of crime should not be million confiscation order in April deducted when considering the
SEPTEMBER 2014 DEVON CHAMBERS IN THE SUPREME COURT According to folk lore, you can wait a long time for a bus to show up and then two or three turn up at once. As with buses - for Devon Chambers - so with cases to be heard at the Supreme Court. In the 25 year plus history of Devon Chambers, whilst there have been plenty of appearances in the Court of Appeal, no member of chambers has appeared in either the Supreme Court or its ancestor the House of Lords. Until now. Now Chambers has two cases due to be heard in the Supreme Court in the next eight months. The cases couldn’t be more different. One delves into a specific issue relating to criminal confiscation; the other to a broader issue relating to the approach of the courts to a disability discrimination defence to residential possession proceedings. Their route to the Supreme Court was similarly very different - highlighting the procedural variations between civil and criminal cases as they progress to the highest court in the land. The Confiscation Case Having been convicted in Truro Crown Court of multiple charges of Handling Stolen Goods, Jack Harvey was made subject to a £1.2 million confiscation order in April 2012 under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). He appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). As is required in criminal cases, a lengthy advice on appeal was drafted containing four grounds which was lodged, within 28 days, in May 2012 for consideration by the single judge. Leave was finally granted on all four grounds in December 2012 and in May 2013 there was a hearing before the full court (Lord Justice Jackson, Mr Justice Wyn Williams and The Recorder of Preston). The Court unanimously dismissed the three substantive grounds of appeal but allowed one ancillary one (reducing the time to be served in default of payment) Harvey [2013] EWCA Crim 1104. One substantive ground of appeal however raised a novel area of law. In short the issue raised was “whether, in assessing the amount of benefit obtained by a company for the purpose of confiscation, any VAT accounted for and/or paid to HMRC should be subtracted from the turnover figure prior to any final calculation of the benefit figure.” The Court of Appeal considered themselves bound by an earlier Court of Appeal case (R-v- Del Basso and Goodwin [2010] EWCA Crim 1119) which had interpreted POCA as saying that any expenses related to the obtaining of the proceeds of crime should not be deducted when considering the
CHAMBERS_NEWSLETTER_SEPT_2014.docx