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

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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.

%d bloggers like this: