Beaumont, R. v

Where confiscation and compensation orders are made in the same proceedings, and the court believes that the defendant cannot satisfy both in full, section 13 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires a direction that the unrecoverable compensation be paid from sums recovered under the confiscation order.

In assessing means for that purpose, the value of a matrimonial or family home should not generally be treated as available where meeting the orders would probably require its sale. The approach may differ in exceptional circumstances, including where fraud proceeds can be traced into the home.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Reading Crown Court to two fraud counts. Her admitted benefit was £17,675.57. The sentencing judge made a confiscation order for that sum and a separate compensation order for the same sum.

The judge held that she had sufficient means to satisfy both orders because of her equity in the jointly owned family home. The appellant had no earned income and limited savings. She appealed the compensation order, contending that her means were insufficient and that compensation should instead be paid from confiscated sums under section 13(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Appeal allowed. The court varied the confiscation order so that £17,675.57 recovered under it would satisfy the compensation order.

1. Sections 13(5) and 13(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 apply where confiscation and compensation orders are made against the same person in the same proceedings and the court believes that the person lacks sufficient means to satisfy both. In that event, the court must direct that the specified unrecoverable compensation be paid from sums recovered under confiscation.

2. The court applied the approach in R v Morgan and Bygrave [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 60. Where the criminal benefit does not exceed the victim's loss, justice ordinarily favours routing the offender's disgorged gains to the victim rather than the public purse, provided the statutory insufficiency condition is met.

3. The trial judge had treated the appellant's equity in the family home as available means. The Court of Appeal accepted the line of compensation-order authorities that ordinarily regards it as inappropriate to require sale of a jointly owned matrimonial or family home. It held that the same general approach was justified when assessing means under section 13. On the evidence, satisfying both orders would probably require sale of the home. Its value was therefore left out of account. The appellant lacked sufficient means, so a full section 13(6) direction was both available and appropriate.

4. Using section 36, the court varied the confiscation order accordingly. The compensation order remained in place, but was to be satisfied from the confiscated sum.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2014] EWCA Crim 1664, allowed the appeal and varied the confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
• Reading Crown Court — following guilty pleas to two fraud counts, imposed a confiscation order of £17,675.57 and an additional compensation order of the same amount.