The Proceeds of Crime Bill states that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. And yet a High Court judge has already effectively ruled that one of its clauses infringes human rights, says Jonathan Cohen
The state has draconian powers to freeze and seize property. A landmark judgment protecting the rights of the individual, and one of the first cases in English law to deal with the right to protection of property since the Human Rights Act (HRA), is the recent decision of Mr Justice Hooper in Hughes & Ors v HM Customs and Excise.
This premium content is reserved for
Legal Week Subscribers.
Subscribe today and get 10% off.
A PREMIUM SUBSCRIPTION PROVIDES:
- Trusted insight, news and analysis from the UK and across the globe
- Connections to senior business lawyers within the leading law firms and legal departments
- Unique access to ALM's unrivalled, market-leading reporting in the US and Asia and cutting-edge research, including Legal Week's UK Top 50 and Global 100 rankings
- The Legal Week Daily News Alert, Editor's Highlights, and Breaking News digital newsletters and more, plus a choice of over 70 ALM newsletters
- Optimized access on all of your devices: desktop, tablet and mobile
- Complete access to the site's full archive of more than 56,000 articles
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate enquiries, please contact Paul Reeves on Preeves@alm.com or call on +44 (0) 203 875 0651