Ruddick v R.

A breach of a procedural requirement for postponing confiscation proceedings does not automatically invalidate a later order. Its effect depends on Parliament’s intention, identified from the statutory language, structure and purpose. Under section 72A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, an effective postponement requires the defendant to understand that sentencing remains ongoing and that a financial order may follow. It does not require particular formal words or a fixed return date. A costs order made before confiscation is completed is not a nullity, but may be varied on appeal if the sequence caused injustice. A court may make one defendant bear all reasonable prosecution costs where that is just, and may impose a lawful default term for non-payment.

The appellant was convicted after a second jury trial at Newcastle Crown Court of conspiracy to handle stolen vehicle parts. He appealed against conviction on grounds concerning the use and directions given on evidence, the Crown’s decision not to call a witness, and the admission of evidence about red diesel used in ice-cream vans.

He also appealed against sentence and related financial orders. He challenged the validity of a £100,000 confiscation order, the order that he pay prosecution costs, the two-year term in default of payment, and the overall length of consecutive custodial sentences. The central sentencing questions concerned the consequences of non-compliance with the statutory procedure for postponing confiscation proceedings, the proper treatment of costs made before confiscation, and totality.

1. Disposition. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction. It allowed the appeal against sentence only to reduce the aggregate custodial term to five and a half years.
2. Conviction. The trial judge had dealt fairly with the evidence. His directions made clear that statements by co-defendants made in the appellant’s absence were not evidence against him. He had also properly deprived the red-diesel and ice-cream-van evidence of significance. The remaining evidence entitled the jury to find that stolen vehicle parts were knowingly dealt with and that the appellant was involved. The verdict was safe.
3. Postponement of confiscation. Applying R v Sekhon & Others [2002] EWCA 2954, the court held that the consequences of a procedural breach depend on Parliament’s intention, rather than on a bare mandatory-or-directory classification. Section 72A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was directed to preventing an unfair second sentencing process and undue delay. The appellant knew that the financial process remained outstanding. The adjournment was therefore effective, despite the absence of formal language or a fixed hearing date.
4. Costs and default imprisonment. Section 72A(9) required the financial sequence to be observed, but a costs order made prematurely was not thereby void. It could be challenged on appeal if the later confiscation order showed that the costs order was unjust. Here the costs order was not manifestly excessive. The judge could reasonably require the appellant, as the defendant able to pay and the person responsible for contesting the case, to bear all the costs. The court rejected the contrary comment in R v Threapleton [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 46 about the corrective power under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Under section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1970, the two-year default term was lawful and appropriate.
5. Totality. The sentencing judges could not be criticised on the material then before them. Fresh material before the Court of Appeal nevertheless justified reducing the consecutive sentence for the conspiracy from three and a half years to one and a half years. That produced an aggregate term of five and a half years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The sentence appeal was allowed only by substituting a consecutive sentence of 18 months for the sentence of three and a half years, producing an aggregate of five and a half years: [2003] EWCA Crim 1061.
• Crown Court at Newcastle: HHJ Cartlidge convicted the appellant of conspiracy to handle stolen vehicle parts and imposed a consecutive sentence of three and a half years. The judge later made a confiscation order of £100,000 and ordered prosecution costs, with imprisonment in default.