Court of Appeal
Wieromiejczyk and another v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2024] EWCA Crim 1486
2024 Oct 31
Dec 6
Macur LJ, Goss J, Sir Nigel Davis
CrimeRestraint orderExternal request for provisional measures from member state of European UnionGuidance on required approach to external requests Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Treaty Series No 8) (2021), arts 656, 663, 670, 689 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 (SI 2005/3181), arts 7, 8, 9, 46(2)

Guidance as to the required approach to external requests for provisional measures from member states of the European Union.

(1) An external request, and the information contained in it, should always be carefully scrutinised by the Crown Court.

(2) In deciding whether to make a restraint order pursuant to such an external request the current required approach continues to be in substance the same as that required immediately before 2021.

(3) In deciding whether to make a restraint order the Crown Court must initially assess whether the first condition or second condition set out in article 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 is satisfied.

(4) In deciding whether the relevant condition is satisfied and whether to make a restraint order the Crown Court should focus solely on the information provided with the external request.

(5) In deciding whether to exercise the power under article 8 of the 2005 Order to make a restraint order the Crown Court should aim to give effect to the policy and objectives of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Treaty Series No 8) 2021, as well as to the “steer” given in article 46(2) of the 2005 Order itself.

(6) In deciding whether to make a restraint order the Crown Court is not (subject, for the avoidance of doubt, to the prior requirement to be satisfied by the external request as to the first condition or second condition in article 7) concerned with the substantive reasons for the making of the measure which is the subject of the request.

(7) On any subsequent application to discharge or vary a restraint order under article 9 the Crown Court again is not concerned with the substantive reasons for the making of such measure; and any substantive challenge to the measure (including any challenge as to its necessity and proportionality) should be raised by the affected party in the requesting state (para 40).

The applicants, Michal and Przemyslaw Wieromiejczyk, did not appear and were not represented but provided written arguments.

Martin Evans KC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Alan Bates (instructed by Treasury Counsel) as Advocate to the Court.

Clare Barsby, Barrister

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies