George, R. v

In confiscation proceedings, benefit is the total value of property or advantage obtained through relevant criminal conduct. It is not confined to net profit. Whether a conspirator obtained property depends on the facts established by the court, including whether the person had ownership, control, or a power of disposition over it.

A court may draw robust inferences about the role of participants in a drugs conspiracy. A defendant who imports and transfers a consignment as a principal participant may be treated as having obtained its whole value. The limited position of a mere courier or minor fee-paid contributor applies only where the evidence supports it.

The appellant was convicted after a 19-day trial of conspiracy to supply cocaine. The prosecution case was that he flew from France with a cocaine consignment, transported it in a case connected with him, and transferred it to a co-conspirator.

Following his conviction, the Crown Court made a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for £70,800, representing the agreed available assets. The judge assessed the appellant’s benefit from the criminal conduct at £220,000, being the wholesale value of the drugs.

The appellant appealed against the confiscation order. The central issue was whether the evidence justified the finding that he had obtained the drugs, rather than acting only as a minor courier.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Crown Court’s confiscation order of £70,800 was upheld.

2. The court applied the principles stated in May [2008] UKHL 28. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, benefit is the total value of property or advantage obtained from relevant criminal conduct, rather than a defendant’s net profit. The confiscation court must establish the facts as best it can on the material available.

3. A defendant ordinarily obtains property where he owns it alone or jointly, which ordinarily involves power to dispose of or control it. A mere courier, custodian, or very minor fee-paid contributor with no interest in the property will not usually have obtained the property. In the absence of an agreed basis of plea or compelling evidence from the defendant, a court may infer from the proved circumstances that the main conspirators jointly possessed the fruits of their agreement.

4. The trial judge was entitled to infer that the appellant was near the top of the conspiracy. He had flown his own aircraft to France, returned with the drugs in his case, used a hired car to transport them, and transferred them to his co-conspirator. His repeated flights, the purity of the drugs, and the telephone evidence supported that finding. Those facts fully justified rejecting any characterisation of him as a mere courier or very minor contributor.

5. The judge’s reasons were sufficiently apparent from the trial evidence and sentencing remarks. There was therefore no basis to quash the order, remit the matter for fuller reasons, or apportion the benefit differently.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the confiscation order was dismissed and the Crown Court order was upheld.
• Cambridge Crown Court: Following the appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to supply cocaine, the trial judge made a confiscation order of £70,800 on 7 May 2010 and assessed benefit at £220,000.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): A renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction had previously been dismissed on 26 February 2010.