Introduction

The case of Wieromiejzyk & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions ([2024] EWCA Crim 1486) presents a pivotal moment in the interpretation and application of restraint orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (2005 Order) in conjunction with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) that succeeded the UK's departure from the European Union. The Applicants, citizens of Poland, sought the discharge of restraint orders imposed by the Southwark Crown Court following external requests from Polish authorities alleging involvement in organized crime activities. Their application was dismissed by Judge Baumgartner and subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. This judgment underscores the intricate balance between respecting foreign judicial decisions and the UK's domestic legal framework post-Brexit.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, presided over by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), dismissed the Applicants' application for leave to appeal against the decision of Judge Baumgartner, which had denied the discharge of restraint orders. The restraint orders were based on external requests from Polish authorities alleging that the Applicants were part of an organized crime group involved in the production and distribution of psychoactive substances. The court thoroughly examined the legal framework governing such restraint orders, the compatibility of foreign judicial decisions with UK law post-Brexit, and the overarching principles outlined in the TCA. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the validity of the restraint orders, emphasizing the supremacy of the TCA provisions and the limited scope for challenging foreign judicial decisions within the UK courts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several pivotal cases and legal provisions that have shaped the current legal landscape:

• A v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] EWCA Crim 1393: Highlighted the importance of adhering to foreign judicial decisions without delving into their substantive grounds within the UK courts.
• R v S [2019] EWCA Crim 1728: Provided a checklist for assessing unreasonable delays in legal proceedings.
• Heathrow Airport Limited v HM Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 783 and Lipton v BA City Flyer Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 454: Addressed the interpretation of section 29 of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, emphasizing limitations on automatic modification of domestic law by the TCA.
• Lipton case [2024] UKSC 24: The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the expansive interpretation of section 29, reinforcing a purposive and balanced approach to integrating the TCA into UK law.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning revolved around several key areas:

• Respect for Foreign Judicial Decisions: Emphasized that the UK courts must respect the independence and legitimacy of foreign judicial processes, especially under the TCA framework.
• Integration of TCA Provisions: Clarified that the TCA's provisions regarding restraint orders take precedence over older regulations, such as the 2014 Regulations, but do not automatically override domestic requirements unless explicitly stated.
• Limitations on Challenging Foreign Orders: Reinforced that substantive challenges to foreign restraint orders, including their necessity and proportionality, must be pursued within the originating foreign jurisdiction rather than the UK courts.
• Dual Criminality and Relevant Property: Validated the Crown Court's assessment that the property in question met the criteria for restraint under both the 2005 Order and the TCA, ensuring that dual criminality was satisfied.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving restraint orders based on external requests:

• Strengthened TCA Supremacy: Affirms the TCA's role in governing international cooperation on criminal matters post-Brexit, ensuring consistent application of restraint orders.
• Limited Judicial Scrutiny: Restricts UK courts from delving into the substantive grounds of foreign restraint orders, promoting efficiency and respect for international judicial processes.
• Guidance for Legal Practitioners: Provides a clear framework for assessing and responding to external restraint order requests, emphasizing adherence to both domestic and international legal obligations.
• Enhanced Legal Certainty: By upholding the restraint orders, the judgment offers predictability for individuals and entities subject to similar legal measures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Restraint Orders

Restraint Orders are legal instruments that prohibit individuals or entities from accessing, dealing with, or disposing of specific properties. These orders are typically issued to prevent the dissipation of assets suspected to be proceeds of crime, ensuring that they remain available for potential confiscation.

Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)

The TCA is a comprehensive agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union that governs various aspects of their post-Brexit relationship. In the context of criminal justice, it outlines the framework for cooperation on freezing and confiscation of property linked to criminal activities, replacing previous EU-based regulations.

Dual Criminality

Dual criminality refers to a principle in international law where an act must be considered a crime in both the requesting and the requested country for certain legal processes, like the issuance of restraint orders, to proceed.

Nullum Crimen Sine Lege

A Latin phrase meaning "no crime without law." It is a fundamental legal principle stating that an individual cannot be prosecuted for an act that was not defined as a crime at the time it was committed.

Conclusion