[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> S v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service & Anor [2012] EWHC 2822 (Admin) (05 September 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2822.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 2822 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		5 September 2012

Wednesday 5 September 2012

MR JUSTICE WALKER:

1. This is an application by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It concerns a claim form which is to be issued in proceedings for the recovery of cash which was seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The money was seized from the second respondent to this application.
2. The information which is presently available about what happened at the time of the seizure, which was as long ago as 25 February 2003, is that the person from whom it was seized was Edwardo Rodrigues. The detailed circumstances, in so far as they are known, are set out in the witness statement of Vanessa Ewing dated 25 May 2012. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this judgment for me to say anything about those details.
3. Mr Matthew Slater appears today on behalf of the applicant. He has provided a helpful skeleton argument which explains the problem that has arisen and which has necessitated the present application. As part of the seizure process the second respondent was identified by name. However, unfortunately, as the seizure took place so long ago, additional records have been destroyed. In order to proceed with the recovery action the applicant faces the difficulty that it has been unable to trace the second respondent; nor has it been able to find any useful information as to where he might be found for the purposes of service of the recovery proceedings. The details are set out in the statement of Miss Ewing and it is unnecessary for me to repeat them here.
4. I am satisfied that it is right to conclude that the second respondent is an individual who cannot be found. Accordingly, this seems to me to be a proper case in which I ought to make an order which dispenses with service on him. The order will be under CPR 6.16(1) as regards the claim form, and it will be under CPR 6.28 as regards any further document which is to be served in the proceedings.
5. The date of the application, Mr Slater, is 13 June 2012?

MR SLATER: The Application Notice, my Lord, is behind tab 1. It is dated 28 May.

MR JUSTICE WALKER: It appears to have been issued on 13 June.

MR SLATER: It was issued, my Lord, on 13 June.

MR JUSTICE WALKER: I have extracted that order from the bundle and signed it. That completes the proceedings so far as this application is concerned.

MR SLATER: My Lord, I am very grateful.