Section 11: Conditions for exercise of restraint order powers
66.This section amends sections 40 and 41 of POCA, which set out the circumstances under which a restraint order may be made by the Crown Court. A restraint order has the effect of freezing property that may be liable to confiscation following the trial and the making of a confiscation order; breach of a restraint order constitutes a contempt of court. The section gives effect to the commitment in the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy to strengthen POCA by “enabling assets to be frozen more quickly and earlier in investigations”.
67.Section 40 of POCA sets out a number of alternative conditions for making a restraint order. The intention is that a restraint order should be available at any time after a criminal investigation has started to minimise the risk of the accused being able to dissipate his or her assets beyond the reach of law enforcement agencies. Section 40(2) of POCA sets out the test in the first condition in the following terms –
a criminal investigation has been started in England and Wales with regard to an offence, and
there is reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct.
The phrase “reasonable cause to believe” in this context is taken to mean that the court thinks that, on the available evidence, it is more likely than not that the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct. This contrasts with the test for the arrest of a person, namely that there is “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that the person is guilty of an offence that had been or is being committed (see section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). The term “suspicion” denotes a degree of satisfaction, not amounting to belief, but at least extending beyond speculation. A test based on suspicion can therefore be more easily satisfied than one based on belief. Subsection (1) accordingly amends section 40(2) of POCA so that it provides that a Crown Court may make a restraint order where -
a criminal investigation has been started in England and Wales with regard to an offence, and
there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct.
An advantage of aligning the test for making an arrest and that for the making of a restraint order is that it would be open to the relevant law enforcement agency to apply to the Crown Court for the making of a restraint order and for this to be served in parallel with affecting the arrest of the defendant.
68.Subsection (2) inserts new subsections (7A) to (7C) in section 41 of POCA which enable the court to monitor progress with the investigation and, if a decision to charge is not made within a reasonable time, the court may then discharge the restraint order. This safeguard ensures that a defendant does not have his or her assets frozen indefinitely where it becomes evident to the court that insufficient progress is being made with the criminal investigation. What constitutes a “reasonable time” is a matter for the court to determine on the facts of the case. Under section 41, as amended, the court must impose a reporting requirement at the time of making the restraint order (new subsections (7A) and (7B)(a)) unless the court decides not to do so and gives reasons for that decision (new subsection (7C)(a)). The court may decide not to impose a reporting requirement where, for example, the law enforcement agency has informed the court that the suspect is to be arrested and charged within a short period. If a reporting requirement is imposed, the court may, on its own motion, discharge the restraint order (new subsection (7B)(b)). If a reporting requirement has not been imposed, the court may, on its own motion, subsequently impose one (new subsection (7C)(b)) and in such a case the court may, again on its own motion, discharge the restraint order (new subsection (7B)(b)).
