Part 8 orders lawful where search for benefit was true purpose

In R (Horne, May and May) v Central Criminal Court 2012 EWHC 1350 the Claimants were challenging the issue of a disclosure order and search warrants under Part 8 POCA 2002. Raymond May had been the subject of a confiscation order in excess of £3m in August 2002. In October 2010, the Central Criminal Court made the subject ex parte orders against his girlfriend, wife and son. The power to make the orders stems from a confiscation investigation. The Claimants argued that since the order had already been made some eight years previously there was no such investigation and hence the orders were unlawful. The Crown contended it was looking for the benefit of Mr Mays offending even though such benefit had already been quantified and an order had been made. It was the Claimants case that, in reality, the Crown was looking for realisable assets with which to assist the enforcement process and that as this was the true purpose of the orders they were unlawful. The High Court found that there was no limitation on the investigation process and as it was satisfied that the true purpose of the investigation in this case was to look for ˜benefit rather than ˜realisable assets the orders were not unlawful.