Silcock & Anor, R v

Confiscation proceedings under Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1993, remain an extension of sentencing but employ the civil burden and procedure prescribed by Parliament. The court may consider trial evidence and relevant properly obtained information, including material not admissible at trial, when assessing benefit and recoverable assets. It must assess that material judicially and attach appropriate weight.

Sentences for sophisticated international counterfeiting conspiracies depend on their scale, organisation, role and mitigation. A sentence comparison with a materially smaller and less serious conspiracy will not establish excess or disparity.

Silcock pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deliver counterfeit currency notes and received six years’ imprisonment. Levin was convicted after trial of conspiracies to import and distribute high-quality counterfeit United States dollar bills. He received concurrent nine-year sentences.

Levin was also made subject to a confiscation order following a hearing at Worcester Crown Court. The judge assessed his benefit and recoverable assets by reference to trial evidence and other information, including witness statements and Silcock’s interview.

Silcock appealed his sentence. Levin appealed his sentence and the confiscation order. The central issue on confiscation was whether the ordinary rules of criminal evidence governed proceedings under Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor unjustifiably disparate. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat Levin as the principal driving force in a sophisticated, international and large-scale counterfeiting operation. Silcock knowingly acted as an agent facilitating the transfer of counterfeit notes and involved family members. His late guilty plea, entered after absconding on bail and delaying the trial, justified limited credit.

2. R v Dossetter & Ors [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 248 did not assist Silcock. That case concerned less sophisticated and less extensive counterfeiting. The scale, international dimension and persistence of the present conspiracies justified the sentences imposed.

3. The amendments made by sections 27 and 28 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 materially changed confiscation procedure under Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The burden is civil. The court may obtain information, draw appropriate inferences, and consider both trial evidence and relevant information properly obtained before or after trial. The hearing remains an extension of sentencing and is criminal in nature, but the statutory civil procedure is correctly applied.

4. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to consider the hearsay material relied upon in the prosecutor’s statement. Admissibility under ordinary criminal trial rules was not decisive. The judge had to examine the material carefully and decide its proper weight. On the facts, he had independent trial and documentary material supporting the findings as to Levin’s benefit and the properties available for recovery.

5. As an additional observation, the court regarded confiscation as part of sentencing rather than the determination of a criminal charge. The procedure included a judicial hearing, disclosure and an opportunity for the defendant to adduce evidence. The judge also retained a discretion against assumptions that risked injustice.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed Silcock’s appeal against sentence and Levin’s appeals against sentence and confiscation order: [2004] EWCA Crim 408.

• Crown Court at Worcester: sentenced Silcock and Levin on 26 July 2002. On 9 January 2003, made a confiscation order against Levin.