From Tuesday 20 March 2012 over three days are the linked appeals of Perry & Ors v Serious Organised Crime Agency and Perry & Ors (No. 2) v Serious Organised Crime Agency, which will be heard by a panel of nine (L Phillips, L Hale, L Brown, L Judge, L Kerr, L Wilson, L Clarke, L Reed and Sir Anthony Hughes). These cases concern whether SOCA has power under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to compel persons outside their jurisdiction. The first appellant was convicted in Israel of a number of criminal offences relating to his involvement in a pension benefits scheme, and had approximately £14 million held in two bank accounts in London under his name and that of his family. SOCA obtained a disclosure order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s357 and under this order sent information notices to the appellants at the first appellant’s London address, and the appellants began proceedings to set aside these notices on the grounds that that there was no jurisdiction to issue them in respect of persons not “domiciled, resident or present” in the UK. In the second matter arising from the same facts it is for the Supreme Court to determine whether the High Court has jurisdiction to make a civil recovery order and a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act in respect of property situated outside the jurisdiction of the High Court.

On Wednesday 21 March 2012 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in the following: Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd, R (ST) v SoS for the Home Department and Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council.

Also starting on Tuesday 20 March is the 1.5 day hearing of Terrell Neilly v The Queen (Bahamas) in the Privy Council, being heard by Lords Hope, Mance, Dyson, Sumption and Sir Stanley Burnton. The Judicial Committee will determine whether the identification evidence of the involvement of the appellant in an armed robbery was sufficient to support his conviction in the absence of an identification parade, and in circumstances where the judge permitted a dock identification and later withdrew alternative charges of receiving stolen goods from the jury. Case details are available here.

There are no judgments to be handed down by the Privy Council this week.

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:

BAI Ltd v Thomas Bates and Son Ltd, BAI Ltd v Durham, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance, Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance Company and Adur District Council and Ors, Independent Insurance Company Ltd v Fleming and Anor, Municipal Mutual Insurance Company v Zurich Insurance Company and Ors, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Edwards, Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Akzo Nobel UK Ltd and Excess Insurance Company Ltd v Amec plc, heard 5 – 14 December 2011.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v E.N.E. Kos 1 Ltd, heard 12 – 15 January 2012.

Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership), heard 17 – 20 January 2012.

Stanford International Bank Ltd (acting by its joint liquidators) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, heard 23 – 25 January 2012.

Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority, heard 1 – 2 February 2012.

R (KM) (by his mother and litigation friend JM) v Cambridgeshire County Council, heard 7 – 9 February 2012.

In the Matter of S (a child), heard 20 February 2012.

Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and anor, heard 20 – 29 February 2012.

R (on the application of HH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, R (on the application of PH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa, BH (AP) and another v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland), KAS or H (AP) v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland) and Genoa  Filipek-Kwasny v Polish Judicial Authority, heard 5 – 8 March 2012.

NJDB v JEG and anor, heard 13 March 2012.

Humphreys v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, heard 14 – 15 March 2012.