CRIME — Proceeds of crime — Confiscation order — Realisable property — Inheritance from parents’ estates — Damages for false imprisonment — Whether “things in action” — Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, arts 3(1), 21

Maye v Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland [2008] UKHL 9; [2008] WLR (D) 33

HL(NI): Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: 6 February 2008

The appellant’s interest in his parents’ unadministered estates and an action by him for damages for false imprisonment were “things in action” and so “property” within the definition in art 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

The House of Lords so held in dismissing an appeal by Paul Arthur Maye from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (Nicholson, Campbell LJJ and Higgins J) [2006] NI 206, which had dismissed his appeal from Morgan J.

LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE said that in January 2002 the appellant had pleaded guilty to various counts of obtaining property by deception. The court had made a confiscation order against him in the sum of £33,26917. Before the making of the order both of his parents had died intestate, and letters of administration were not taken out until 29 July 2002. His share in the estates was valued at £18,000. The appellant had also, in 2000, issued proceedings for damages for false imprisonment, which were settled in April 2004 for £2,500. The Director of Public Prosecutions had in November 2002 applied to the court under art 21 of the 1996 Order for a certificate that the appellant’s “realisable property” should be increased by £18,000. A certificate had been issued, and an application by the appellant for the certificate to be set aside had been dismissed. An application for a further certificate for an increase of £2,500, heard by the judge at the same time, had been allowed. The ground of the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords had been that art 21 did not permit an increase in the amount of a confiscation order by reference to the value of assets not acquired by him until after the order had been made. He also challenged the certificate in respect of the £2,500 on the ground that a chose in action of a “personal” nature fell outside the class of assets that could constitute “realisable property”. The “after-acquired assets issue” did not, however, arise in either case. The definition of “property” in art 3(1) of the 1996 Order, including “things in action”, was comprehensive, and it was difficult to think of any proprietary interest that it would not catch. The appellant’s interest under the unadministered estates of his parents had been “property” at the time when the confiscation order had been made. An action for damages for false imprisonment was also a “thing in action”, and there was no exception for choses in action of a personal nature.

LORD BINGHAM, BARONESS HALE, LORD CARSWELL and LORD NEUBERGER agreed.

Appearances: James McNulty QC and Desmond Hutton (both of the Northern Ireland Bar) (Thomas T Montague, Irvinestown) for the appellant; Terence Mooney QC and Jonathan Lowry (both of the Northern Ireland Bar) (Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland) for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Reported by: Michael Gardner, barrister