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
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll