tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6435782381398776888.post635060423847193780..comments2023-12-22T17:05:51.229+00:00Comments on OF INTEREST TO LAWYERS: FREEZING TERRORIST ASSETSA Barrister in Londonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08022693708807443338noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6435782381398776888.post-84213868573681198082010-10-19T15:43:47.197+01:002010-10-19T15:43:47.197+01:00I agree, the freezing of the assets is, in effect,...I agree, the freezing of the assets is, in effect, an injuction preventing the owner from accessing them. I see now reason why there should be a divergence from the usual course for obtaining an injunction of applying to a judge, albeit in camera.<br /><br />Slightly off topic, but when I saw the headline "Freezing Terrorist Assests", was I the only one who thought cruel and unusual punishment/ouch?Defence Briefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06385869501459309601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6435782381398776888.post-6688484530325893712010-10-11T18:26:51.815+01:002010-10-11T18:26:51.815+01:00I see no good reason why the seizure could not be ...I see no good reason why the seizure could not be authorised by a judge of at lease Circuit Judge rank. I do not think that JPs would be the right venue. This is no disrespect to them but magistrates' courts have little involvement with proceeds of crime matters generally and it would seem preferable to keep that work with judges who are experienced at it.<br /><br />I would be interested to hear the reasons why the judicial hearing (if any) has to be ex post facto.<br /><br />A possible parallel with search warrants might be where the warrant is to search for special procedure material / excluded material etc. Those go to the judges.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.com