Evwierhowa, R. v

For the transitional operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, a continuing offence is treated as committed on its earliest day. A conspiracy is complete when the unlawful agreement is made with the necessary intent. No act in pursuance is required.

A guilty plea to a count alleging that a conspiracy began before the commencement date admits that offence as charged, unless the plea or an amended count changes the alleged period. A later first admitted overt act does not alter the date on which the conspiracy offence began. Accordingly, confiscation remains governed by the earlier statutory regime where the admitted conspiracy began before the commencement date.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Inner London Crown Court to two conspiracies to make false instruments. Count 1 alleged a conspiracy running from 1 January 2003 to 16 May 2007. His written basis of plea identified the first passport application he admitted countersigning as dated 29 October 2003.

In confiscation proceedings, Judge Faber held that the Criminal Justice Act 1988, rather than the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, applied. That choice was material because the later Act’s criminal-lifestyle provisions could not apply on the agreed benefit of £450. A confiscation order for £6,220 followed.

The appeal concerned whether the admitted conspiracy was committed before the 2002 Act’s commencement date despite the later first overt act in the basis of plea.

1. Appeal dismissed. Judge Faber correctly held that confiscation was governed by the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

2. The transitional provisions for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 applied that Act only to offences committed on or after 24 March 2003. An offence committed over two or more days is, for that purpose, treated as committed on the earliest day.

3. A conspiracy is committed when the parties make an unlawful agreement with the necessary intent. The agreement itself completes the offence; no subsequent act in furtherance is needed. A later overt act may evidence participation in the conspiracy, but does not mark the date on which the conspiracy began.

4. By pleading guilty to count 1, the appellant admitted the conspiracy alleged in that count, including its commencement on 1 January 2003. His written basis of plea did not assert a later commencement date and did not require an amended count. Its identification of 29 October 2003 as the first admitted countersigning act therefore did not alter the offence to which he had pleaded guilty.

5. The offence was committed over a period including 1 January 2003. It was consequently treated as committed on that earliest date, before the commencement of the 2002 Act. The 2002 Act could not govern the confiscation proceedings, and the order made under the 1988 Act stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appellant’s appeal with leave and confirmed that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 governed the confiscation proceedings.

• Inner London Crown Court Following guilty pleas to counts 1 and 10, Judge Faber ruled in September 2009 that the 1988 Act applied and made a confiscation order of £6,220 on 2 October 2009.