PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 3383/06) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two British nationals, Mr David Frederick Bullen and Mr Kamlesh Kumar Soneji (“the applicants”), on 19 January 2006.

The applicants were represented by Mr N. Seeley, a lawyer practising in Hertford. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Sharif.

On 14 June 2007 the Acting President of the Chamber of the Fourth Section to which the case had been allocated decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 §3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

1. The applicants’ conviction and sentence

The applicants were born in 1946 and 1962 respectively and live in London. They were charged with involvement in a money laundering scheme together with a third co-accused, Mr E.

On 24 March 2000 the second applicant pleaded guilty at a Crown Court to conspiracy to launder the proceeds of criminal conduct contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. On 3 April 2000 the first applicant pleaded guilty to the same offence.

On 21 June 2000 the prosecution served notice under section 71(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988, see paragraphs 40-41 below), as amended by the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, indicating their intention to seek confiscation orders to recover the proceeds of the applicants’ criminal conduct.

On 29 June 2000 counsel for the second applicant requested an early confiscation hearing and counsel for the co-accused, Mr. E., requested a confiscation hearing in September. The trial judge pencilled in a date on the week beginning 30 October 2000, as that was the first occasion on which he would be available. The trial judge further directed that the date would be considered again on the proposed date for sentence, 18 August 2000.

On 18 August 2000 the second applicant was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment and the first applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Prior to sentence the confiscation hearing was formally postponed until after passing sentence and was fixed for 30 October 2000, outside the six-month period required under section 72A of the CJA 1988.

2. Adjournment pending R. v. Steele and Shevki

On 30 October 2000 the case was listed for the confiscation hearing with a time-estimate of five working days. The applicants objected that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the confiscation proceedings on the grounds that more than six months had elapsed since their convictions and that the judge had not considered whether there were “exceptional circumstances” warranting the imposition of the confiscation orders outside the statutory time-limit, as required by section 72A (3) of the CJA 1988, as amended (see paragraph 35 below).

On 3 November 2000 the trial judge held that he had jurisdiction to hear the confiscation proceedings. It was then agreed by the parties that the confiscation proceedings should be adjourned to await the outcome of a similar case which was due to be heard by the Court of Appeal, R v Steele and Shevki. The confiscation proceedings were adjourned until 5 February 2001.

On 21 November 2000 Mr E. was granted leave to appeal against his conviction. On 24 November 2000 both the applicants’ applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused by a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

On 14 December 2000 the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in R v. Steele and Shevki ([2000] EWCA Crim 70). It found that although adjournments beyond the six-month period prescribed by statute should be avoided, exceptional circumstances such as the unavailability of a judge would not deprive a subsequent confiscation order of its validity.

On 31 January 2001 the confiscation proceedings were listed again for mention. Renewal of argument in relation to the Crown Court’s jurisdiction to hear the confiscation proceedings, in light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R v. Steele and Shevki, was listed for 8 and 9 March 2001. Following the hearing on 8 March 2001, the judge held that the court retained a common law power to adjourn beyond the statutory six-month time-limit in compelling circumstances such as where there was an illness or the judge was unavailable. In his opinion a statutory postponement citing exceptional circumstances was required only where the purpose of the postponement was to gather further information, and not in the instant case where the issue had been the unavailability of the judge.

3. Mr E.’s appeal and application for an adjournment

On 26 and 27 March 2001 the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed Mr E.’s appeal against conviction. On 30 March 2001 the confiscation proceedings were listed again for mention before the trial judge, to notify him of the result of Mr E.’s appeal. At this stage Mr E. was seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords and was awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeal on his application for leave to appeal. The substantive hearing of the confiscation hearing was again adjourned.

On 2 May 2001 the Court of Appeal refused Mr E.’s application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords and declined to find that a question of law of general public importance was involved in the decision.

On 12 June 2001 the confiscation proceedings were listed for directions and with the agreement of all parties, the hearing was fixed to begin on 15 October 2001.

On 20 September 2001 the confiscation proceedings were again listed for mention at the request of Mr. E. who sought to adjourn the confiscation hearing that was fixed for 15 October 2001.

On 26 September 2001 the confiscation proceedings were again listed to consider Mr E.’s application for adjournment. The proceedings were adjourned to 28 January 2002 with a time estimate of three weeks.

4. The proceedings before the Court of Appeal

On 28 January 2002 the Crown Court imposed a confiscation order on the second applicant in the amount of GBP 75,350, to be paid within 18 months of the resolution of any appeal to the Court of Appeal, with a consecutive term of twelve months’ imprisonment to be served in default.

On 4 February 2002 the second applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal, challenging the confiscation order on the ground that the Crown Court had no jurisdiction to make it because of the lapse of the six-month period provided by section 72A(3) of the CJA 1988.

On 7 February 2002 the Crown Court imposed a confiscation order on the first applicant in the sum of GBP 375,000, to be paid within 18 months of the resolution of any appeal to the Court of Appeal, with a consecutive term of 21 months’ imprisonment to be served in default.

On 25 February 2002 the first applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal challenging the confiscation order on the same grounds as the second applicant (see paragraph 20 above).

On 12 December 2002 the second applicant obtained a Certificate of Inadequacy from the High Court. This entitled him to return to the Crown Court to seek a reduction of the confiscation order.

On 4 February 2003 the second applicant’s case was listed before the Crown Court and the confiscation order was reduced to GBP 30,284, taking into account the Certificate of Inadequacy.

On 20 June 2003 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicants’ appeals and quashed the confiscation orders and default sentences of imprisonment. They noted that on 29 June 2000, defence counsel for the second applicant and the co-accused Mr. E. had requested an early hearing at the Crown Court. However, the earliest date that the trial judge would be available was the week beginning 30 October 2000. That date was pencilled in by the trial judge, even though it was “more than four months away”. The Court of Appeal considered that, given the importance attached by Parliament and the courts to the link between confiscation orders and sentencing, a high degree of judicial scrutiny was required before finding exceptional circumstances to justify the imposition of a confiscation order outside the six-month time-limit. In the present case, there was no evidence of any enquiry from 24 March 2000 (when the second applicant was the first to plead guilty) onwards into whether a space could be found for the confiscation hearing during the six-month period.

Furthermore, on 3 November 2000, the trial judge had acknowledged with “admirable candour” when finding that he had jurisdiction to hear the confiscation proceedings outside the six-month time-limit that “no enquiry was made of the (applicants) as to the postponement” when the decision to hold the confiscation hearing in the week beginning 30 October 2000 was finally confirmed on 18 August 2000. Neither had there been any analysis of any factors which might amount to exceptional circumstances. The trial judge had also “candidly acknowledged more than once” that there were no exceptional circumstances. The Court of Appeal ultimately found that the failure to address the question as to whether the circumstances could properly be described as exceptional and to make a finding to that effect was fatal to the upholding of the confiscation orders. Though in principle confiscation orders should not be quashed for mere defects in procedure, if the statutory requirement of exceptional circumstances was to be more than a “mere incantation”, enquiry into the circumstances and the possibility and feasibility of a timely hearing were required.

On 30 July 2003 the Court of Appeal certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in the decisions.

5. The proceedings before the House of Lords

On 1 April 2004 the House of Lords granted the prosecution leave to appeal against the decisions of the Court of Appeal.

On 21 July 2005 the House of Lords reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeal and ordered the latter to re-impose the confiscation orders in respect of both applicants.

The House of Lords observed that the core problem before it was whether, as a matter of statutory construction, failure to comply with a statutory time-limit would have the effect of invalidating an act. The fact that Parliament cast statutory requirements in imperative form without expressly specifying the consequences of a failure to comply had caused difficulty and had been the source of a great deal of litigation over the preceding 130 years. A distinction had first evolved between mandatory and directory requirements; where a requirement was mandatory, a failure to comply had the effect of invalidating the act in question but where a requirement was merely directory, a failure to comply did not invalidate the act. Over the years, a further distinction had been made between two types of directory requirements: requirements of a purely regulatory character, where a failure to comply would never invalidate an act, and requirements where a failure to comply would not invalidate an act provided that there was substantial compliance. In London and Clydeside Estates Ltd v. Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR 182, 189E-190C, however, Lord Hailsham had emphasised that it was within the courts’ inherently discretionary jurisdiction to determine the nature of a particular statutory requirement and to examine the consequences of non-compliance before determining whether Parliament had intended total invalidity. In the later case of Wang v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1994] 1 WLR 1286, the Privy Council followed and applied the dictum of Lord Hailsham in London and Clydeside Estates (cited above). The House of Lords also took into consideration a number of cases in which the Court of Appeal had adopted the same approach, and parallel developments in the courts of New Zealand, Australia and Canada.

In the present case, the House of Lords considered that the prime purpose behind the statutory provision for confiscation orders was the recovery of any financial benefit that an offender might have obtained from his criminal conduct. The Law Lords rejected the applicants’ argument that, given the criminal law context, a strict approach to the construction of section 72A of the CJA 1988 should be adopted and instead applied a teleological approach. They noted that section 71(1) of the CJA 1988 imposed a positive duty to proceed with confiscation proceedings and that the time limits under section 72A were linked to the date of conviction rather than sentence. This was considered to be evidence that Parliament’s intention was the early disgorgement of an offender’s criminal gains. Though Parliament had envisaged that courts would make confiscation orders before sentencing, unless they exercised their postponement power under section 72(A)(1), it was of some significance that Parliament considered it more important that a confiscation order should be made than that it should be made before the defendant was sentenced. Though no common law power to adjourn existed, Parliament could not have intended to disable a court from making a confiscation order after sentence merely because the time-limits were not strictly adhered to.

In the present case, the Crown Court had postponed its final decision on confiscation orders in good faith. The prejudice to the applicants was not significant and was outweighed by the countervailing public interest in not allowing convicted offenders to escape confiscation for what were no more than bona fide errors in the judicial process. In any event, there would always be the safeguard of judicial review should there be an apparent abuse of process.

In October 2005 the Court of Appeal re-imposed the confiscation orders and sentences of imprisonment in default on the applicants.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e1
001-90398_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
3383/06
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e2
001-90398_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e3
001-90398_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e4
001-90398_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr David Frederick Bullen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e5
001-90398_a8_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Kamlesh Kumar Soneji
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e6
001-90398_a8_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
19 January 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e7
001-90398_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr N. Seeley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e8
001-90398_a8_em8
LOC
QUASI
Hertford
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e9
001-90398_a8_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e10
001-90398_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Ms A. Sharif
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e11
001-90398_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
14 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e12
001-90398_a8_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1946
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e13
001-90398_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1962
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e14
001-90398_a8_em14
LOC
QUASI
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e15
001-90398_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e16
001-90398_a8_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
24 March 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e18
001-90398_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
3 April 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e19
001-90398_a8_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
21 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e20
001-90398_a8_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
29 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e21
001-90398_a8_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr. E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e22
001-90398_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
September
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e23
001-90398_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e24
001-90398_a8_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
18 August 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e24
001-90398_a8_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
18 August 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e25
001-90398_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
four and a half years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e26
001-90398_a8_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
six years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e23
001-90398_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e27
001-90398_a8_em29
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e28
001-90398_a8_em30
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Steele and Shevki
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e23
001-90398_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90398_a8_e29
001-90398_a8_em32
DATETIME
NO_MASK
five working days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e30
001-90398_a8_em33
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e31
001-90398_a8_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
3 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e33
001-90398_a8_em36
MISC
NO_MASK
R v Steele and Shevki
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e34
001-90398_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
5 February 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e35
001-90398_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
21 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e36
001-90398_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e37
001-90398_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
24 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e38
001-90398_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
14 December 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e39
001-90398_a8_em44
MISC
NO_MASK
R v. Steele and Shevki
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e40
001-90398_a8_em45
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e41
001-90398_a8_em46
MISC
NO_MASK
EWCA Crim 70
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e27
001-90398_a8_em47
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e42
001-90398_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
31 January 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e39
001-90398_a8_em51
MISC
NO_MASK
R v. Steele and Shevki
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e43
001-90398_a8_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
8 and 9 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e44
001-90398_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
8 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e27
001-90398_a8_em54
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e36
001-90398_a8_em55
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e45
001-90398_a8_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
27 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e36
001-90398_a8_em58
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e46
001-90398_a8_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
30 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e36
001-90398_a8_em60
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e36
001-90398_a8_em61
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e47
001-90398_a8_em62
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e48
001-90398_a8_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
2 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e36
001-90398_a8_em66
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e47
001-90398_a8_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e49
001-90398_a8_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e50
001-90398_a8_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e51
001-90398_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
20 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e21
001-90398_a8_em71
PERSON
QUASI
Mr. E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e50
001-90398_a8_em72
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e52
001-90398_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
26 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e36
001-90398_a8_em74
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e53
001-90398_a8_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
28 January 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e54
001-90398_a8_em76
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three weeks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e53
001-90398_a8_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
28 January 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e55
001-90398_a8_em80
QUANTITY
QUASI
GBP 75,350
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e56
001-90398_a8_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
18 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e57
001-90398_a8_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e58
001-90398_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
4 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e27
001-90398_a8_em86
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e59
001-90398_a8_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
7 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em88
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e60
001-90398_a8_em89
QUANTITY
QUASI
GBP 375,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e56
001-90398_a8_em90
DATETIME
QUASI
18 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em91
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e61
001-90398_a8_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
21 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e62
001-90398_a8_em93
DATETIME
QUASI
25 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e63
001-90398_a8_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
12 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e64
001-90398_a8_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em96
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e65
001-90398_a8_em97
DATETIME
QUASI
4 February 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em98
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e66
001-90398_a8_em99
QUANTITY
QUASI
GBP 30,284
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e67
001-90398_a8_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
20 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em101
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e20
001-90398_a8_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
29 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e21
001-90398_a8_em103
PERSON
QUASI
Mr. E.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e23
001-90398_a8_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e68
001-90398_a8_em106
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em107
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e69
001-90398_a8_em108
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e27
001-90398_a8_em109
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e16
001-90398_a8_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
24 March 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e27
001-90398_a8_em111
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e31
001-90398_a8_em112
DATETIME
QUASI
3 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e27
001-90398_a8_em113
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e23
001-90398_a8_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e24
001-90398_a8_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
18 August 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e70
001-90398_a8_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
30 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em118
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e47
001-90398_a8_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e71
001-90398_a8_em120
DATETIME
QUASI
1 April 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e47
001-90398_a8_em121
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em122
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e72
001-90398_a8_em123
DATETIME
QUASI
21 July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e47
001-90398_a8_em124
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e47
001-90398_a8_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e69
001-90398_a8_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e73
001-90398_a8_em128
DATETIME
NO_MASK
130 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e74
001-90398_a8_em129
MISC
NO_MASK
London and Clydeside Estates Ltd v. Aberdeen District Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e75
001-90398_a8_em130
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1980
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e76
001-90398_a8_em131
MISC
NO_MASK
1 WLR 182, 189E-190C
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e77
001-90398_a8_em132
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Hailsham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e69
001-90398_a8_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e78
001-90398_a8_em134
MISC
NO_MASK
Wang v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e79
001-90398_a8_em135
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e80
001-90398_a8_em136
MISC
NO_MASK
1 WLR 1286
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e81
001-90398_a8_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Privy Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e77
001-90398_a8_em138
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Hailsham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e74
001-90398_a8_em139
MISC
NO_MASK
001-90398_a8_em129
London and Clydeside Estates
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e47
001-90398_a8_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em141
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e82
001-90398_a8_em142
LOC
NO_MASK
New Zealand
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e83
001-90398_a8_em143
LOC
NO_MASK
Australia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90398_a8_e84
001-90398_a8_em144
LOC
NO_MASK
Canada
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e47
001-90398_a8_em145
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e85
001-90398_a8_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Law Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e69
001-90398_a8_em147
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e69
001-90398_a8_em148
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e69
001-90398_a8_em149
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e69
001-90398_a8_em150
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e17
001-90398_a8_em151
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90398_a8_e86
001-90398_a8_em152
DATETIME
QUASI
October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90398_a8_e32
001-90398_a8_em153
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
David Frederick Bullen
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: David Frederick Bullen