Dominic Bardill is successful in the High Court in an appeal against the seizure of cash by the Metropolitan Police
Dominic Bardill appears in the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, in an appeal against a decision by the lower Courts to allow for the continued retention under s.295 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), of money seized under sections s.294 POCA and retained under s.295 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
Instructed by the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, Dominic opposed the appeal and the request for return of the cash to the Appellant.
The Appellant had been stopped at Heathrow Airport due to suspicions that he was carrying a false Covid-19 certificate. Once it was confirmed that the certificate was indeed false, he was arrested and his bags were searched. Inside his bag, there was a laptop bag filled with cash in £10,000 wads, wrapped in foil and brown paper (designed to help evade detection from the scanners). He could not properly account for this cash and claimed he was going to a wedding in Egypt and to buy a property. He could not provide any evidence and could not explain why he had not simply transferred it via his Egyptian bank account, such as the one he had the card for on his person. Officers were satisfied that the money represented the proceeds of money laundering and arrested him for such; seizing the cash under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Some time later, Officers decided to seize the cash under POCA, and wrote to the Defendant to inform him of their intention to do so and to bring it before the Courts.
The lower Court found that seizure took place on the 5th March, and therefore that the application before them on the 7th March was within the requisite 48 period pursuant to POCA. The Appellant submitted the lower Courts were wrong to find that seizure took place at that moment, and that it was at the point of the letter and no later. Consequently, the application under s295 of POCA had been out of time. The Appellant further submitted that a photograph of the cash would have sufficed (s.22(4) of PACE) after the initial seizure; and that when Officers no longer felt that PACE applied, POCA automatically became appropriate and the Officer should have seized immediately. Failure to do so meant the cash was held unlawfully.
Dominic submitted that the Appellant had misapplied the law. He submitted that a photo would not have sufficed and so s.22(4) PACE did not apply. Dominic further submitted that there is nothing to suggest POCA and PACE operated in the way the Appellant claimed, and that even if their Lordships found that it did, Case Law suggests there is a ‘grace period’. Dominic went on to argue that a POCA seizure is a formal act which takes place when the Officer formally carries it out. In this case, on the 5th March.
Citing the latest Case law and authorities in support of his argument, Dominic successfully persuaded their Lordships and the appeal was dismissed.