Parkinson, R. v

A potential sale of a family home is a relevant consideration when deciding whether to make a compensation order, but it is not subject to a general rule that prevents such an order. Under section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the court must exercise its discretion on the facts, having regard to the offender’s means and all relevant circumstances.

Where a confiscation order has properly been made, a direction under section 13(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 may require compensation to be paid from sums recovered under that order. The possible sale of the home is not a trump card against either order. If sale follows from realising the offender’s interest for confiscation, the compensation direction does not itself cause that consequence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Preston to theft from his employer. His agreed benefit was £39,330. His only realisable asset was his £14,688 share of the equity in the jointly owned family home.

The Crown Court made a confiscation order for that available amount and a compensation order for the employer. As the appellant could not satisfy both orders, the judge directed under section 13(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 that compensation be paid from sums recovered under the confiscation order. The judge accepted that this might lead to the home’s sale.

On appeal, the central issue was whether the potential forced sale of the family home prevented the making of the compensation order or the section 13(6) direction, and consequently the confiscation order.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Crown Court made no error of law and was entitled to make both orders and the section 13(6) direction.
2. The appellant’s interest in the jointly owned family home was free property forming part of the available amount for confiscation purposes. A co-owner’s beneficial interest does not alter that conclusion. Nor does the fact that realisation may be difficult or may require further court proceedings. Accordingly, a confiscation order for the appellant’s available amount could properly be made.
3. There is no general or ordinary principle that a compensation order should not be made if it may require the sale of a family home. The earlier authorities relied on for that proposition pre-dated the statutory scheme and could not establish such a rule. The court followed Maguire (1991) 13 Cr.App.R (S) 332: every case depends on its facts and circumstances.
4. Under section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the potential sale of the home is a relevant matter which a sentencing judge should consider. It may sometimes be paramount. Its weight, however, is for the judge’s unfettered discretion after considering the offender’s means and all relevant circumstances.
5. Beaumont [2014] EWCA Crim 1664 was distinguishable and did not assist the appellant. It was decided on its facts and concerned correction of an order where no section 13(6) direction had been made. Its actual disposition, which included a direction that compensation be met from confiscated sums, also undermined the appellant’s argument.
6. The court endorsed the judge’s analysis that any sale in this case would result from the confiscation order, not from directing recovered confiscated sums towards compensation. It added, obiter, that enforcement proceedings may permit a co-owner or dependant to oppose sale or possession by relying on article 8 of the Convention or equitable considerations.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal and upheld the confiscation order, compensation order and section 13(6) direction.
• Crown Court at Preston: His Honour Judge Altham made a confiscation order for £14,688, a compensation order, and directed under section 13(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 that compensation be paid from sums recovered under confiscation.