Richard Taylor Assistant Superintendent of Police v Natalie Natasha Spring and another [2026] UKPC 18; Privy Council Appeal No 0103 of 2023

In Richard Taylor (ASP) v Natalie Spring and another [2026] UKPC 18, the Privy Council considered the first use of Trinidad and Tobago’s Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) regime under the Civil Asset Recovery and Management and Unexplained Wealth Act 2019. The case arose from an ex parte application by a police officer for a Preliminary Unexplained Wealth Order (PUWO) against Natalie Spring and the estate of Sheldon Spring, based on evidence gathered during earlier drug-related investigations. The High Court initially set aside the PUWO on two grounds: (1) that the required “reasonable suspicion” could not rely on investigations conducted before the 2019 Act came into force, and (2) that a PUWO could not be made against the estate of a deceased person. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, reinstating the PUWO and this prompted a further appeal to the Privy Council.

The Privy Council dismissed the appeal and upheld the reinstatement of the PUWO. On the first issue, it held that the statutory threshold of “reasonable suspicion” is a low one and was clearly satisfied by the evidence, which showed significant unexplained wealth linked to drug trafficking and money laundering. The Board emphasised that the regime is non-conviction based, meaning that neither a criminal conviction nor proof that the respondent personally committed the offence is required. On the second issue, the Board rejected the argument against retrospectivity, ruling that the relevant time for assessing suspicion is the date of the application and that the Act expressly applies to property and conduct predating its commencement. It further interpreted the requirement that suspicion arise “during the course of an investigation” broadly, so that earlier investigations could be treated as continuing or revived.

On the third issue, the Board held that while a PUWO cannot be made directly against a deceased person, it may properly be made against the estate through a personal representative. Although there had been a procedural defect because no representative had been appointed at the time the order was sought, this was cured by backdating the appointment of an administratrix ad litem, as no prejudice was suffered by the estate.

The decision is significant because it confirms the retrospective reach and flexible operation of the UWO regime, affirms its non-conviction-based nature, and makes clear that death does not shield illicit assets from recovery, while also demonstrating the court’s willingness to remedy procedural irregularities to achieve the legislation’s purpose.