R v Luckhurst (Respondent)
Case ID: 2021/0005
Case summary
Issue
The proposed appeal relates to the scope of permitted legal expenditure as an exception to a restraint order granted pursuant to section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether section 41(4) prohibits an exception for reasonable legal expenses in respect of civil proceedings relating to the same or similar facts as those of the offence(s) giving rise to the restraint order.
Facts
The respondent, Mr Luckhurst, faces criminal proceedings in the Crown Court. The indictment alleges fraud and theft arising out of Mr Luckhurst’s conduct practising as an independent financial advisory in a company called BBT Partnership Limited. The CPS’ case is that Mr Luckhurst ran a fraudulent Ponzi scheme and stole money from clients. In 2016, a number of BBT’s investors brought civil proceedings in the High Court against Mr Luckhurst and others. Those civil proceedings are ongoing. In December 2017, on the application of the CPS, the Crown Court made a restraint order against Mr Luckhurst under the POCA. This was to preserve Mr Luckhurst’s assets to meet any confiscation order which may be made by the Crown Court under the POCA in the event of Mr Luckhurst’s conviction. Mr Luckhurst instructed solicitors to defend the civil claim agaisnt him and sought a variation to the restraint order to pay those solicitors £3,000 for advice on a settlement. Mr Luckhurst’s variation application was refused by the judge at first instance but allowed on appeal. The CPS now appeals to the Supreme Court.
Judgment appealed
Parties
Appellant(s)
Crown Prosecution Service
Respondent(s)
Andrew Luckhurst
Appeal
Justices
Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens
Hearing start date
7 June 2022
Hearing finish date
7 June 2022
| Watch hearing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 7 June 2022 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
Judgment details
Judgment date
20 July 2022
Neutral citation
[2022] UKSC 23
- Judgment (PDF) Update 21/07/22: A second version of this judgment has been published with a correction to a case reference in para 23
- Press summary (HTML version)
- Judgment on The National Archives (HTML version)
- Judgment on BAILII (HTML version)
| Watch Judgment summary | |
|---|---|
| 20 July 2022 | Judgment summary |