A High Court judge has ruled that the Crown Court cannot release money already subject to a forfeiture order to pay a person’s legal expenses for an appeal, after dismissing a challenge brought by Sarah Odeh against the City of London Police.
What did the High Court decide?
In Sarah Odeh v City of London Police [2026] EWHC 2904 (Admin), Mrs Justice Foster DBE considered whether section 303Z16(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) empowered the Crown Court, hearing an appeal against a forfeiture order, to release money from the account concerned so that the appellant could meet reasonable legal expenses.
The judge answered that question in the negative. She held that the Crown Court’s power to make “any order it thinks appropriate” on an appeal did not extend to creating an exclusion from funds that had already been forfeited. The appeal by way of case stated was therefore rejected. The judgment was handed down on 10 November 2026, following a hearing on 2 July 2026.
How did the dispute arise?
On 11 February 2022, the City of London Police obtained an account freezing order from Westminster Magistrates’ Court in relation to £348,000 held in an Everyday Savers account at Barclays Bank in Ms Odeh’s name. The application was based on reasonable grounds to suspect that the money was recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct.
The police subsequently applied for forfeiture of the full balance. Westminster Magistrates’ Court made the forfeiture order on 13 November 2024. Ms Odeh, who had been unrepresented at the forfeiture hearing, lodged an appeal on 21 November 2024.
In February 2025, she applied to the Crown Court for part of the money to be released to meet her legal expenses in the appeal. On 20 March 2025, HHJ Tomlinson sitting at Southwark Crown Court refused the application, concluding that the court had no power to release funds that the Magistrates’ Court had ordered to be forfeited. The High Court proceedings followed by way of case stated.
- City of London Police obtains an account freezing order over an account holding £348,000.
- The police applies for an account forfeiture order in respect of the full balance.
- Westminster Magistrates’ Court makes a forfeiture order over the £348,000.
- Ms Odeh lodges an appeal against the forfeiture order.
- The Crown Court refuses her application for funds to meet legal expenses.
- The case stated appeal is heard in the High Court.
- The High Court dismisses the appeal.
What was the legal issue?
Ms Odeh relied on section 303Z16(3) POCA, which provides that the court hearing an appeal may make any order it thinks appropriate. She argued that this wording allowed the Crown Court to release part of the forfeited funds to cover reasonable legal costs incurred in bringing the appeal.
She also relied on the legal-expenses provisions in section 303Z5. Those provisions allow a Magistrates’ Court, when an account freezing order remains in force, to make an exclusion so that a person can meet reasonable legal expenses in proceedings under Part 5 of POCA. Ms Odeh argued that limiting this protection to the Magistrates’ Court would undermine her ability to obtain legal representation at the appeal stage and engage her rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The City of London Police argued that section 303Z16(3) had to be read in the context of the statutory scheme. On its interpretation, the Crown Court’s powers concern orders consequential on the appeal, including the release of money if an appeal against forfeiture succeeds, rather than a power to make a new legal-expenses exclusion after forfeiture.
Why was the Crown Court’s power limited?
Mrs Justice Foster accepted the police’s interpretation. The judgment distinguishes between an account freezing order and a forfeiture order. While an account freezing order is in force, the statutory exclusions regime can permit withdrawals for specified purposes, including reasonable legal expenses. But once a forfeiture order is made and the money is transferred to an account nominated by an enforcement officer, the account freezing order ceases to have effect.
The judge considered that the wording of section 303Z16(3), read alongside the following subsections, concerned the orders the Crown Court could make when determining the appeal. Section 303Z16(4), for example, expressly provides for the release of money where the court upholds an appeal against a forfeiture order. The legislation did not expressly give the Crown Court the separate power to make the legal-expenses exclusion sought by Ms Odeh.
“The Respondents’ reading of the statute is correct”
Mrs Justice Foster DBE, summarising her conclusion on the scope of the Crown Court’s powers
The judge also rejected the suggestion that this interpretation caused fundamental unfairness. She said an application for legal expenses could be made at an earlier stage, while the account freezing order remained in place. The statutory wording covers expenses already incurred and those a person reasonably incurs, which the judge considered capable of including anticipated costs of an appeal.
She added that an application could be made when the initial freezing order was sought or later, before the forfeiture order was made, including at a directions hearing or case management hearing when the likely shape of any appeal had become clearer. The judgment also referred to section 303Z6 POCA, which allows a court in which proceedings are pending in respect of the account to stay those proceedings or permit them to continue on terms it considers appropriate.
What does the judgment mean for future cases?
The decision highlights the importance of addressing legal-cost funding before an account freezing order is brought to an end by a forfeiture order. A person facing forfeiture proceedings who may need to challenge the outcome should consider seeking an appropriately framed exclusion for reasonable legal expenses while the Magistrates’ Court still has jurisdiction over the frozen account.
For practitioners, the judgment makes clear that the general wording of section 303Z16(3) should not be treated as a substitute for the specific legal-expenses mechanism in sections 303Z4 and 303Z5. The timing of an application can therefore be decisive. The High Court did not determine the second question posed in the case stated, concerning the approach to desirability and quantum, because its answer to the first question was “no”.
The ruling does not decide the underlying merits of whether the £348,000 was recoverable property or intended for unlawful conduct. It addresses the narrower question of the Crown Court’s jurisdiction to release forfeited funds to meet legal expenses during an appeal.
Frequently asked questions
What did the High Court rule in Sarah Odeh v City of London Police?
The High Court held that the Crown Court does not have power under section 303Z16(3) POCA to release forfeited funds to pay an appellant’s legal expenses. The appeal was dismissed.
How much money was subject to the account freezing order?
The account freezing order obtained by the City of London Police related to £348,000 held in an Everyday Savers account at Barclays Bank in Ms Odeh’s name.
Can legal expenses be paid from an account subject to a freezing order?
Section 303Z5 POCA allows the Magistrates’ Court to make an exclusion for reasonable legal expenses while an account freezing order is in force, subject to the statutory requirements and conditions.
Why could the Crown Court not release the money after forfeiture?
The High Court held that the forfeiture order brought the account freezing order to an end and that section 303Z16(3) did not confer the separate power to make a legal-expenses exclusion from funds already forfeited.
When should an application for legal-cost funding be made?
The judgment indicates that an application should be made while the account freezing order remains in force. It may be made at the outset or before forfeiture, including at a later directions or case management hearing.