Court of Appeal interprets POCA in the context of corporate supply chains
On 27 June, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in R (World Uyghur Congress) v NCA. It has been hailed as opening up the possibility for companies to be prosecuted where forced labour or other human rights abuses occur in their supply chains.
What was the case about?
The World Uyghur Congress brought a claim for judicial review against, among others, the National Crime Agency (“NCA”). It arose out of the NCA’s decision not to investigate the possibility of forced labour or other human rights abuses occurring in the supply chains for consignments of cotton goods imported into the UK.
The judicial review centred around statements in a letter concerning the circumstances in which an investigation into alleged POCA offences would be merited and, in particular, whether the NCA was correct to claim that s329(2)(c) of POCA applied as a defence aimed at protecting a bona fide purchaser for value and effectively ‘cleansed’ criminal property. The first instance judge dismissed the claim for judicial review; the World Uyghur Congress appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.
What did the court decide?
In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal outlined that the designation ‘criminal property’ for the purposes of POCA depends on the mental state of the accused party by operation of s340(3)(b). As such, s329(2)(c) – which exempts liability for certain parties who provide consideration for criminal property – cannot apply to a bona fide purchaser for value. Furthermore, the NCA was incorrect in stating that specific criminal conduct and criminal property must be identified for an investigation to be merited.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decision on whether to investigate possible offences or consider civil recovery actions under POCA remitted to the NCA.
The court also stated that importers or purchasers who suspect there are human rights abuses in the supply chain of the goods they purchase are not bona fide and therefore cannot rely on s308 in any action for civil recovery against them.
Who were the barristers in the case?
Jonathan Fisher KC, Tom Forster KC, Anita Clifford, Russell Hopkins and Admas Habteslasie acted for the World Uyghur Congress as Appellant. Sir James Eadie KC, David Perry KC and Katherine Hardcastle represented the National Crime Agency as Respondent. Kennedy Talbot KC represented Spotlight on Corruption as Intervenor.
You can view our POCA and Asset Forfeiture rankings here.
