R v Green

The House of Lords considered whether, for the purposes of confiscation under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, where a payment or reward arising from drug trafficking is received jointly by two or more persons acting as principals, the value of each person's "proceeds of drug trafficking" within section 4(1)(b) includes the whole of that payment. The court concluded that where property or money is received by one defendant on behalf of several defendants jointly, each defendant is to be regarded as having received the whole of it for the purposes of the legislation. The court applied the principle previously stated in R v May and treated the Court of Appeal decision below ([2007] EWCA Crim 1248) as correct. The court rejected arguments premised on international conventions and on the risk of multiple recovery and held that proportionality challenges to the confiscation regime were not made out in this case.

The appellant, convicted after guilty pleas of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs and related offences, faced a confiscation order under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. The Crown sought confiscation based on aggregate proceeds derived from the conspiracy; the judge at first instance assessed a benefit and made a confiscation order, treating sums retained by co-conspirators as proceeds in which the appellant was jointly interested.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed in part and adjusted the calculation. The question certified for the House of Lords was whether, where payments or rewards in connection with drug trafficking are received jointly by two or more principals, each person's proceeds under section 4(1)(b) include the whole of the payment.

• Nature of the claim: Confiscation proceedings under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, seeking recovery of the appellant's "benefit" from drug trafficking.
• Issues framed by the court: whether a defendant can be treated as having received the whole of jointly received proceeds for the purposes of section 4(1)(b); whether such an approach permits impermissible multiple recovery or is disproportionate; and whether international obligations or other jurisdictions require a different construction.
• Court's reasoning: the committee held that where money or property is received by one conspirator on behalf of several jointly, each is to be regarded as having received the whole for the statutory purpose (applying the ratio in R v May). The judge was entitled to infer, on the evidence, that co-conspirators received proceeds on behalf of the conspiracy. Concerns about multiple recovery and international convention obligations did not justify departing from the statute as the UK legislation clearly supported the construction adopted. The proportionality challenge was rejected on the facts and by reference to earlier authorities.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that where proceeds of drug trafficking are received jointly by two or more persons acting as principals, each of them may be regarded as having received the whole of the payment for the purposes of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (notably sections 1(3) and 4(1)(b)), and the Court of Appeal's approach in [2007] EWCA Crim 1248 and the reasoning in R v May were correct. Arguments based on international conventions, multiple recovery concerns and proportionality did not require a different construction.

Conviction and sentence at Manchester Crown Court (guilty pleas entered 13 May 2004; sentence 2 August 2004). Confiscation proceedings before Judge Steiger (judgment 17 February 2006). Appeal to the Court of Appeal: [2007] EWCA Crim 1248 (decision summarised by David Clarke J). Further appeal to the House of Lords: [2008] UKHL 30 (this judgment).