Bewick, R. v

A criminal compensation order should be confined to cases in which the relevant legal and factual position is clear and straightforward. It is unsuitable where resolving the amount requires detailed and contested evidence, competing expert views, or arbitrary evaluative judgments. In such circumstances, particularly where the order cannot determine the liabilities of a non-party, the issues should be resolved in civil proceedings rather than through the criminal sentencing process.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court to cheating the revenue. He was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £257,295.98 compensation, calculated by reference to undeclared taxable earnings and benefits.

Confiscation proceedings were not pursued within the apparent statutory time limit. The sentencing judge instead made a compensation order after considering contested evidence concerning the appellant's earnings and tax-related liabilities. The appellant appealed against that order, contending that the issues were too complex for compensation proceedings and should be determined in civil proceedings.

1. Appeal allowed. The compensation order was quashed.
2. Section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 empowered the Crown Court to make a compensation order for loss resulting from the offence, having regard to the evidence and representations. That power did not make a compensation order suitable for every disputed financial claim arising from criminal conduct.
3. The court followed the established guidance in R v Miller (1979) 68 Cr App R 56, R v Kneeshaw (1974) 58 Cr App R 439, and Hyde v Emery (1984) 6 Cr App R(S) 206. Compensation orders are intended for clear and simple cases. A sentencing court should decline to determine compensation where difficult questions of fact or law arise.
4. This case involved detailed and complex issues. The evidence of the competing witnesses was in direct conflict, and calculation of the alleged loss required evaluative and potentially arbitrary judgments. Further, HM Revenue and Customs was not a party to the compensation proceedings. The order therefore could not determine the appellant's tax liability to that body.
5. Those features made the Crown Court compensation process inappropriate. The disputed matters should not have been determined by a compensation order, and the order was accordingly quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against the compensation element of the sentence and quashed the compensation order.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: Following a guilty plea to cheating the revenue, imposed a £25,000 fine and ordered compensation of £257,295.98.