The right of property under A1P1- Supreme Court sees that it has teeth

18 November 2012 by

R v. Waya [2012] UKSC 51, 14 November 2012, read judgment

Traditionally, the qualified right to peaceful possession of property conferred by Article 1 of the 1st Protocol (A1P1) has been thought of as a rather feeble entitlement, easily outweighed by public interests. After all, every day of the week, the modern state affects that right – think taxes or planning restrictions, or business bans arising out of public health concerns (e.g. see here), where removal and confiscation or restriction on what we do with property is readily accepted. Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) needs a bit of remedial HR surgery as and when its blunderbuss rules would otherwise have a disproportionate effect on those affected. But the importance of the ruling extends far beyond the specific statutory context.

The story is a familiar one. Parliament, quite rightly, decided that we needed a way of taking the benefits of crime away from criminals on conviction – over and above the system of fines. But it also realised that without some set rules this will prove difficult, if not impossible, to administrate. If the exercise were to be to ascertain the net benefit of the crime, then we get into frightful tangles. Can a defendant set off against his profit of crime his expenses – the cash to the getaway driver, the bung to the dodgy public official, or the contract killing payment?  The answer in the statute, and in this decision, is – No. This would be offensive and impractical. So far, so good.

But how far may the answer to the question – what did D really gain from this crime – diverge from the answer given by the statute? This was the conundrum facing the Supreme Court. And it found it very difficult. It had an initial hearing in 2011 in front of 7 judges – but then requested a re-hearing in front of 9. And those 9 split 7-2 in the result, thought the critical reasoning was common to all 9 judges.

The core of the reasoning of all 9 judges is given in [14] in approving the submissions of both prosecution and the Home Secretary as follows:

(a) that POCA must be read and given effect in a manner which avoids a violation of A1P1;

(b) that a confiscation order which did not conform to the test of proportionality would constitute such a violation;

(c) that it is incumbent upon the domestic court to provide a remedy for any such violation; and

(d) that the appropriate remedy lies in the duty of the Crown Court judge not to make an order which involves such a violation.

These submissions are plainly correct. Any such violation can be avoided by applying to POCA, and in particular to section 6, the rule of construction required by section 3 of HRA

section 3 HRA requiring that all statutes be read “so far as possible to do so” to be compliant with the HRA.

The minority (Lords Philips and Reed) explain at [84] what this means in practice in terms which support their characterisation of this (common) approach as being “novel and imaginative” [83]:

A1P1 requires the judge hearing an application for a confiscation order to adopt the following approach. First he must decide on the amount of the benefit that the defendant is deemed to have obtained from his crime by the application of the express provisions of POCA (“the POCA benefit”). Secondly he must decide on the real benefit that the defendant has obtained from his crime (“the real benefit”). Thirdly, where the POCA benefit exceeds the real benefit, he must decide whether it is proportionate to base the confiscation order on the POCA benefit. If it is not, he must make an order that is proportionate in place of the order based on the POCA benefit.

So you decide what the statute says – then you decide what the HRA principle of proportionality requires – and then you bend the statutory answer accordingly because section 3 tells you to do so. This approach has been in the HRA from the start, but it is interesting to see it being used in a context where all agree that the public interest requires some legislative action – but not the overkill we see in this particular Act.

Waya, POCA and lying to lenders.

But now to a little of the detail without getting too bogged down in the byways of POCA – on which books have been written. Waya was prosecuted under the Theft Act for lying about his earnings when buying a new flat. He bought it for £775,000. £310,000 (40%) came from his own assets, with the balance of £465,000 (60%) from the lender lied to. Ironically, he would have got the mortgage anyway, though he might have had to pay more interest had he told the truth. What then was the “benefit” as ascertained through the labyrinthine rules of POCA?  The property was now worth £1.85m.

At the various stages of this litigation, the courts have come up with four different answers:

1. The judge made a confiscation order of £1.54m, i.e. its current value of £1.85m less Waya’s original £310,000.

2. The Court of Appeal reduced the order to £1.1m, i.e. 60% of the market value of the flat (the remaining 40% being attributed to his investment).

3. The majority of the Supreme Court said that the POCA benefit was £392,400 – after a sustained analysis of the property rights and interests in play – in summary, 60% of the net appreciation, as one can see from [80]. This sum, though substantial, was not disproportionate so hence the majority concluded that A1P1 made no difference to this appeal – though may well may a difference to other potential appeals.

4. The minority of the Supreme Court disagreed with that analysis. It said that the POCA benefit was £987,400, but that this was disproportionate – indeed the only real benefit from the fraud was the potentially cheaper cost of borrowing resulting from the artificially high earnings advanced by Waya. This true benefit would have been modest, and in the circumstances, the only just solution was not to made any order at all.

So, again moving from the complexities of POCA to the A1P1 approach, we see that the A1P1 effect would have saved the hapless Waya £987,400 if the minority’s detailed analysis were correct. Worth going to court about.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

1 comment;

  1. Toneye Foy says:

    This was a most intresting case and well looked into by there lordships but i am trying to find a case where local local atority ilegaly takes land from the owner will p1 a1 prevailif it gowes to court and the owner is the defendant

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: