Howard, R. v

A default term for non-payment of a confiscation order must not be fixed by simple arithmetic based only on the amount ordered. The sentencing court must assess the circumstances and the overall seriousness of the offending. A maximum default term may therefore be manifestly excessive, even where the confiscation amount falls within the monetary band permitting that maximum.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Stafford to theft, obtaining services and a money transfer by deception, and false accounting. He received 32 months’ imprisonment.

A confiscation order for £112,247.71 was made, representing the net proceeds of sale of his home. The court allowed six months for payment and imposed a three-year default term, consecutive to the substantive sentence. The appeal, brought with the single judge’s leave, challenged the default term only.

1. The appeal was allowed. The three-year term of imprisonment in default of payment was quashed and replaced with a term of two years.

2. The court applied the approach identified in Szaijber 15 Cr App R(S) 121. The default term must not be selected by a simple arithmetical exercise. The sentencing judge must instead consider the circumstances and the overall seriousness of the offending.

3. The confiscation order was only just above £100,000, whereas a two-year maximum default term applied up to that amount. In those circumstances, the maximum three-year term available for an amount up to £250,000 was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against the default term and substituted two years’ imprisonment in default: [2007] EWCA Crim 1489.

• Crown Court at Stafford: Following guilty pleas, imposed 32 months’ imprisonment, a confiscation order of £112,247.71, and a consecutive three-year default term.