Liscott, R. v

A confiscation order founded on hidden assets will not be disturbed where the trial judge was entitled, on the evidence, to reject the offender’s account of assets and infer that criminal proceeds had been concealed. The offender’s role in the conspiracy, the scale of its benefit, failures to give evidence or an incredible account of assets may support that conclusion.

In fixing a consecutive sentence in default, the court may consider the pressure required to secure payment by the particular offender. A difference between default terms imposed for differing sums does not itself establish error of principle or manifest excess.

Three applicants renewed applications for leave to appeal against confiscation orders made at Birmingham Crown Court in December 2005 after guilty pleas to conspiracy to supply class B controlled drugs. Their substantive sentence appeals had previously produced no reduction.

The conspiracy involved large quantities of cannabis and an undisputed overall benefit of £21,227,712. Mark Liscott challenged the finding that he had hidden assets and the seven-year default term. Andrew Liscott challenged the assessment of his role and the finding of £500,000 in hidden assets. Toon challenged the inference of hidden assets, alleged unfairness at the hearing, and challenged a four-year default term.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused. The Crown Court judge was entitled to conclude that each applicant had hidden assets sufficient to support the confiscation order made against him.
2. In Mark Liscott’s case, the judge could treat him as the beneficial owner of the Scarsdale Road property. He had provided no evidence to displace the substantial evidence linking him with it. That finding, his central role in the conspiracy, and his substantial profit entitled the judge to infer that he had concealed further assets. The order for £2 million, and the consecutive seven-year default term, disclosed no injustice or error.
3. Andrew Liscott’s evidence about his limited involvement and reward was properly rejected as incredible. The judge had heard the surveillance material and was entitled to find that he played an active and useful role. The judge could therefore accept a benefit assessment exceeding £1 million and conclude that Andrew Liscott had not shown either an inability to pay or a basis for an order below £500,000.
4. Toon’s changing and incredible accounts of his assets, together with his role in storing substantial consignments of cannabis, entitled the judge to find that he had received more than he admitted and had hidden assets. The investigator’s inability to identify hidden assets did not bind the judge. The allegation that the financial investigator’s examination had been unfairly interrupted had no merit.
5. The apparent inconsistency between Toon’s four-year default term for £424,554 and Andrew Liscott’s three-year term for £500,000 did not establish error. The judge could take account of the pressure needed to ensure compliance by the particular defendant. Toon’s term was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for leave to appeal against confiscation orders were refused in [2007] EWCA Crim 1706.
• Birmingham Crown Court: Separate confiscation orders were made against the applicants in December 2005 following their guilty pleas to conspiracy to supply class B controlled drugs.