Valentine v R

In confiscation proceedings under statutory assumption regimes, an unexplained cash offer for property may support a finding that a defendant has concealed assets. Where the defendant gives no credible alternative explanation, the judge may make a realistic, necessarily approximate assessment after discounting unreliable estimates of criminal production. That assessment does not create a serious risk of injustice merely because it is approximate.

Terms of imprisonment in default are not manifestly excessive solely because they increase the total period of custody. The court may take account of the defendant’s access to the amount found available and reduce the statutory maximum to reflect totality.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Harrow Crown Court to conspiracies involving counterfeit Diazepam, Viagra and steroids. Following sentence, the Crown Court made confiscation orders under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, totalling £1,216,940.63, with seven years’ imprisonment in default.

The prosecution relied on the scale of the illegal factory and on the appellant’s accepted offer of £1,225,000 for a house. The judge rejected the appellant’s account that the transaction was a risk-free back-to-back purchase, found that he had hidden assets, and assessed them at £800,000 after discounting the Crown’s estimate.

The appeal challenged the confiscation findings, the default terms, and relied additionally on the appellant’s health.

1. Appeal dismissed. The confiscation orders and the combined seven-year term of imprisonment in default remained in force.
2. The court upheld the Crown Court’s use of the statutory assumption regimes under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. The central factual question was whether the appellant had concealed assets. His accepted cash offer of £1,225,000 for a house supported that conclusion.
3. The appellant could not challenge the judge’s rejection of the alleged back-to-back purchase explanation. Having rejected that explanation, the judge was entitled to find that assets were available for the purchase. The appellant had supplied no credible alternative estimate. Although the Crown’s production figures had not entirely persuaded the judge, reducing the inferred sum from £1,225,000 to £800,000 was a permissible and generous adjustment, not a serious injustice.
4. The default terms were not manifestly excessive. The appellant would serve them only if he failed to pay money found to have been available to him. The judge could have imposed ten years in default but reduced that to seven years, evidently taking totality into account.
5. The updated medical evidence could not provide an arguable ground of appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2006] EWCA Crim 2717, dismissed the appeal against both confiscation orders and the terms of imprisonment in default.
• Harrow Crown Court — on 25 October 2005, made confiscation orders under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.