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.
The decision was challenged two weeks ago in the Court of Appeal by HM Customs and Excise and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and judgment has been reserved. The interest in this case is in its stark conflict with the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is shortly to be enacted, and reveals that the judiciary and the Government still have widely differing views about the limitations imposed on the state by the HRA.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
