Peacock & Anor, R v

Under section 16(4) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, realisable property is not confined to assets specifically identified by the prosecution. The court may draw reasonable inferences that further assets exist, provided the evidence satisfies the required civil standard of proof.

A debt owed to a defendant may be valued as realisable property where there is no evidence that it is irrecoverable. A failure to pursue available recovery proceedings does not establish irrecoverability. An error in calculating the total value of assets does not require a variation where the corrected figure still exceeds the amount properly recoverable under the confiscation order.

The appellants had pleaded guilty to conspiracies to supply controlled drugs. In 1997, Preston Crown Court made confiscation orders against each of them after assessing their benefit from drug trafficking at £273,717.50.

Following High Court certificates that larger sums could be realised, His Honour Judge Slinger increased the amounts recoverable under the orders to the full assessed benefit. He later corrected a typographical error in the figure stated in the order. The appellants appealed, challenging the inclusion of inferred unidentified assets, a debt arising from money given to Scott, Peacock’s interest in property, and the exercise of the statutory discretion.

1. The appeals were dismissed. Under section 16(4) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, the Crown Court determines the amount now realisable and then fixes an appropriate amount to be recovered, not exceeding the previously assessed benefit.

2. Realisable property under section 6(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 includes any property held by the defendant. It is not limited to property specifically identified. The court may infer the existence of further realisable assets from evidence proved to the requisite standard. The judge’s findings about Gillett’s undisclosed income, vehicle dealings, rents and lifestyle amply supported his conclusion that Gillett had sufficient unidentified assets.

3. The £200,000 given to Scott was properly treated as a recoverable debt, with £100,000 attributable to each appellant. There was no evidence that Scott lacked the means to repay it. Legal proceedings to recover the money remained available and had not been pursued. The judge was therefore entitled to include the debt at its nominal value and to exercise his discretion without excluding it.

4. The judge was entitled to treat Peacock’s half share in 55 Geoffrey Street as a partnership asset. Although he erred by failing to deduct £29,000 owed to Peacock’s father, the corrected asset figure still exceeded £273,717.50. The error therefore had no practical effect on the amount recoverable. The judge also properly took account of the time since the appellants’ release from prison when exercising his discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed both appeals and upheld the increased amounts recoverable under the confiscation orders.
• Preston Crown Court: His Honour Judge Slinger found increased realisable assets and, under section 16(4) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, ordered each appellant to pay £273,717.50. He corrected a typographical error in the earlier stated figure.
• Preston Crown Court: In 1997, made the original confiscation orders after assessing each appellant’s benefit from drug trafficking at £273,717.50.