header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 January 2023 / David Walbank KC
Issue: 8010 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Criminal , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Crime brief: 27 January 2023

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
107909
The Supreme Court has ruled on varying criminal restraint orders to fund legal advice in parallel civil proceedings: David Walbank KC assesses the outcome

In brief

  • Restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
  • No exception for legal expenses ‘which relate to’ the offence.
  • Parallel civil proceedings caught by the prohibition?

In July 2022, the Supreme Court pronounced on a question that has long been the subject of debate among practitioners specialising in the representation of individuals accused of white-collar crime. R v Luckhurst [2022] UKSC 23, [2022] All ER (D) 76 (Jul) concerned the not-uncommon situation where an alleged fraudster faces linked criminal and civil proceedings based on essentially the same allegations. Where there is a criminal restraint order in place, are legal expenses in the parallel civil proceedings caught by the same statutory prohibition as prevents the defendant funding his criminal defence from restrained assets?

The appeal arose from allegations of fraud made against a former professional footballer and cricketer,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll