Evans, R (on the application of) v North Somerset Magistrates Court

A person’s means must be assessed separately from those of a spouse or partner when determining whether non-payment of compensation amounts to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. A spouse’s voluntary offer to pay from their own assets does not establish that the defendant had the means to pay, particularly where the offer was made under pressure to avoid imprisonment and was later withdrawn. A committal for default cannot stand without a proper finding of wilful refusal or culpable neglect based on the defendant’s own resources.

The claimant had been ordered to pay compensation following her conviction for theft and false accounting. A related confiscation order was later reduced to nil under section 23 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 after the Crown Court accepted that no further assets were available. The claimant subsequently applied under section 133 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to discharge or reduce the compensation order.

The magistrates maintained the order, treated an offer by the claimant’s husband to pay £3,000 as relevant to her means, and ultimately committed her to prison for 12 months for culpable neglect. The central issue was whether the magistrates had lawfully established wilful refusal or culpable neglect sufficient to justify imprisonment.

1. The judicial review application succeeded. The court quashed the order committing the claimant to prison and directed that payments under the existing compensation order be reconsidered in light of her current statement of means.
2. The magistrates had failed to give proper effect to the Crown Court’s orders. Those orders accepted that the claimant had no assets available to satisfy the confiscation order, which was expressly linked on its face to compensation. A compensation order could properly remain in force only if there were clear evidence of other resources, such as regular employment income or a subsequent windfall. No such resource existed.
3. The magistrates had also made a basic error of law by eliding the claimant’s resources with those of her husband. The husband’s redundancy payment belonged to him. His voluntary offer to use it to prevent the claimant’s imprisonment did not make it her asset or establish that she had wilfully refused or culpably neglected to pay.
4. The principle that one person’s fine or financial obligation cannot ordinarily be imposed on the assumption that a spouse will pay was supported by R v Charalambous [1984] 6 Cr App R (S) 385. The qualification discussed in R v Patricia Engam [2004] EWCA Crim 1536, concerning genuinely joint household income and assets, did not apply where the money plainly belonged to the spouse.
5. The fact that the husband later withdrew his offer, whether for a good, bad or indifferent reason, could not establish culpable neglect by the claimant. The magistrates’ conclusion that she was in culpable neglect therefore lacked a lawful factual and legal foundation.

• Bristol Crown Court: The claimant was convicted and sentenced for theft and false accounting. A confiscation order was made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, later reduced to nil under section 23 after the court accepted that no further assets were available.
• North Somerset Magistrates’ Court: The compensation order was maintained and the claimant was committed to prison for 12 months for alleged culpable neglect in failing to pay.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The committal decision was quashed. The compensation payments were directed to be reconsidered in light of the claimant’s current means.