Share it

On appeal from: [2017] NICA 73

The Court of Appeal had decided that S 160A(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 required that, at the time of making a confiscation order, the Crown Court must give to anyone who is thought to have an interest in the property an opportunity to make representations on whether a confiscation order should be made and, if so, in what amount. The failure to give Ms Hilton’s estranged partner and the building society the chance to make representations was “fatal to the decision of the judge” and the confiscation order was invalid. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It held that the questions certified do not arise on the present appeal because a determination under s160A was not made. Where the court makes a s 160A determination, third parties must be afforded the chance to make representations at the stage of making the confiscation order, as provided for by s 160A(2). But where the court does not make a s 160A determination and rather simply forms a view, at this first stage of the process, of the extent of the interest of the person in question, it will have to give third parties the chance to make representations at the enforcement stage. Where the court does not make a s 160A determination, therefore, it is not incumbent upon it to give third parties the chance to make representations at the first stage of the process (the making of the order) because they will have the chance to do so at the second stage (enforcement) before the confiscation order is enforced.

For judgment, please download: [2020] UKSC 29

For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s press summary

For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing please visit: Supreme Court website: 2 December 2019 morning and afternoon session

To watch the judgment summary, please visit: Supreme Court website: 1 July 2020