Merseyside Police v Hickman & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns the statutory powers available to a constable to seize and retain cash under overlapping provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE 1984") and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("PCA 2002"). On 19th August 2003, cash amounting to £6,756 and a quantity of cannabis were seized at a private residence under section 19 of PACE 1984. The cash was retained under section 22 of PACE 1984. Subsequently, the individual connected to the cash was charged with a drug offence but pleaded guilty only to simple possession, with no forfeiture order made against the seized cash. Later, the cash owner issued proceedings for the return of the money under the Police (Property) Act 1897. Before the hearing of those proceedings, the police attempted a second seizure of the same cash under section 294 of PCA 2002, despite the amount seized being below the PCA 2002 minimum threshold in force at the time of the first seizure. The District Judge found that the second seizure was improper and that the police had no power to re-seize the cash under PCA 2002 after their powers under PACE 1984 had lapsed. The case was then appealed for determination of whether cash seized under PACE 1984 can be re-seized under PCA 2002 and under what conditions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether cash seized under the provisions of PACE 1984 can be re-seized subsequently under the PCA 2002.
2. Whether a re-seizure under the PCA 2002 can occur when, at the time of the original seizure, the legal minimum amount for seizure under PCA 2002 was higher than the amount seized.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• A constable can re-seize cash initially seized under PACE 1984 at any time under the PCA 2002 provisions.
• Section 295 of PCA 2002 imposes strict time limits for detention only from the moment of seizure under section 294, but does not limit when the re-seizure may occur.
• There is no principled reason to restrict the power to seize cash under PCA 2002 merely because it was previously seized under PACE 1984.
• The definition of "cash" and the territorial scope of the PCA 2002 seizure powers do not require that the cash be in possession of a person other than the police before it can be seized again.
• The object of Part 5 of PCA 2002 is to recover or forfeit proceeds of crime, which can be achieved by either route, and Parliament did not intend to restrict the constable’s power by the prior exercise of PACE 1984 powers.

Appellee's Arguments

• The police may only re-seize cash under PCA 2002 within a short period (48 hours) after the initial seizure under PACE 1984.
• The statutory detention periods under section 295 of PCA 2002 imply that seizure must occur promptly after the initial seizure to be lawful.
• The second seizure was improper because the amount seized was below the minimum threshold at the time of the first seizure, and the police powers to retain under PACE 1984 had expired.
• The police were not acting in accordance with the PCA 2002 when they re-seized the cash after the retention powers under PACE 1984 had lapsed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Webb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2002] QB 427	No statutory power to confiscate proceeds of crime without conviction; police cannot expropriate seized money from unconvicted persons.	Confirmed the common law position that police powers to retain property end once proceedings conclude without forfeiture.
Gough v Chief Constable of West Midlands (2004)	Police powers to retain property do not extend beyond the completion of investigation; former owner's rights prevail post-investigation.	Supported the conclusion that police cannot retain property indefinitely after proceedings end.
Elias v Pasmore 1934 QB 164	Retention of property beyond investigation is tortious.	Reinforced limits on police retention powers.
Ghani v Jones 1970 1 QBD 693	Once case is disposed of, seized articles should be returned.	Supported the principle that police must return property after proceedings conclude.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory framework governing seizure and retention of cash under both PACE 1984 and PCA 2002. It recognized that section 19 and 22 of PACE 1984 allow seizure and retention of property where there are reasonable grounds related to offences, but that retention powers end once proceedings conclude without forfeiture. The PCA 2002 introduced new civil forfeiture powers enabling seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of crime, including cash, through a summary procedure, with defined minimum amounts and time limits for detention and application to the Magistrates' Court.

The court considered whether a constable could re-seize cash already seized under PACE 1984 using PCA 2002 powers. It found no statutory or principled bar to re-seizure at any time under PCA 2002, provided the amount seized at that time meets the statutory minimum. The court rejected the appellee's argument that re-seizure must occur within 48 hours of the original seizure, clarifying that the 48-hour limit applies only after seizure under PCA 2002, not from the earlier PACE seizure.

The court emphasized that the seizure powers under PCA 2002 are territorially defined but do not require the cash to be in possession of a person other than the police. It also noted that the seizure and forfeiture powers serve the objective of recovering proceeds of crime and Parliament did not intend to restrict these powers due to prior use of PACE 1984 powers.

Regarding the specific facts, the court acknowledged that the minimum amount for seizure under PCA 2002 was £10,000 at the time of the original seizure, but was later reduced to £5,000. The court held that re-seizure under PCA 2002 is permissible if at the time of the PCA 2002 seizure the amount meets the statutory minimum. The court declined to rule on whether the exercise of the power in this case was an abuse of process, remitting that issue back to the lower court.

The court also considered and dismissed any potential violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, finding the seizure powers to be prescribed by law and lawful in their application.

Holding and Implications

The court held that cash seized under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may be re-seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 at any time, provided that at the time of the PCA 2002 seizure the amount meets the statutory minimum then in force.

The direct effect is that police powers to seize cash under PCA 2002 are not limited or restricted by prior seizure under PACE 1984, and the timing of re-seizure is not constrained by the original seizure date. The case was remitted to the District Judge for further determination on whether the exercise of the PCA 2002 seizure power constituted an abuse of process. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the interaction between the two statutes.

The court also quashed the lower court's costs order against the appellant and ordered the appellee to pay the appellant's costs on detailed assessment, subject to inquiry into means due to public funding status.