Adams, R. v

A sentencing court may impose a substantial custodial sentence for prolonged laundering of the offender’s own criminal proceeds, particularly where the conduct preserves wealth generated by professional criminality. Personal mitigation may carry limited weight against that seriousness. A late guilty plea may properly receive only minimal credit where extensive trial preparation resulted from the offender’s failure to plead earlier.

A financial reporting order under section 76 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 is a sentence for the purposes of appeal. It is preventative rather than penal, so Article 7(1) does not bar its retrospective operation. The order may be made where the court is later dealing with the offender, and its terms must be proportionate to the risk presented.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Blackfriars to conspiracy to conceal or disguise property representing the proceeds of his own criminal conduct. He had used sham companies to give an apparent legitimate source for wealth accumulated through earlier professional criminality.

He received seven years’ imprisonment, a confiscation order and related financial orders. At a later hearing, the judge made a ten-year financial reporting order under section 76 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

He appealed against the custodial sentence and challenged the financial reporting order. The issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against that order, whether the Crown Court had power to make it at the later hearing, and whether its requirements were proportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal against the financial reporting order was granted, but neither the seven-year sentence nor the order was varied.

2. The laundering was serious. It continued over a lengthy period and was directed to concealing wealth generated by the appellant’s professional criminal activity. Although the judge did not expressly address the personal mitigation, it could properly play only a relatively small part in sentencing for conduct of that gravity. The judge must have allowed some credit for the guilty plea, making the starting point above seven years. That starting point was severe but not manifestly excessive.

3. Only minimal credit for the late plea was justified. The plea avoided a lengthy protected trial, but substantial preparation, applications and transcription of covert material had already been required because the appellant had not admitted the offence earlier. The judge was entitled to regard those matters as outweighing any substantial saving of public expense.

4. A financial reporting order is an order made only after conviction and is therefore a sentence for the purposes of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The court applied the approach in R v Hayden 60 Cr App R 304. An appeal against such an order was consequently available.

5. The order was not a penalty for Article 7(1) purposes. Its purpose was preventative: it enabled continuing control of a person who presented a risk of further criminal activity. There was therefore no retrospective-penalty bar to applying section 76(1) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

6. When the matter returned to the Crown Court, the judge was still dealing with the offender within section 76 and had jurisdiction to make the order. Reporting every six months in custody and every four months after release was proportionate to the appellant’s prolonged manipulation of his financial affairs to conceal criminal proceeds.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence and the financial reporting order, while granting leave in respect of the latter.

• Crown Court at Blackfriars: following a guilty plea, imposed seven years’ imprisonment on 9 March 2007. At a later hearing on 21 May 2007, it made a financial reporting order under section 76 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.