Jones, R. v

A sentencing court may make a deprivation order for cash that is proved to be working capital intended for future drug dealing under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 143. It must first conduct a proper inquiry where the proposed order is contested. The defendant must have a fair opportunity to give evidence about the cash, and a person asserting an interest in it must be able to make representations. A finding that the defendant was commercially involved in drug dealing for sentencing purposes does not remove those procedural requirements.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Guildford to possessing crack cocaine with intent to supply and received three years and four months’ imprisonment. Following his arrest, police found £4,600 at his home address, together with items associated with drug supply. He gave an account of the cash’s provenance, including an assertion that £400 belonged to his girlfriend.

The sentencing judge made a deprivation order for the cash under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The appellant appealed only that order. The central issue was whether the order had been properly and lawfully made without a formal inquiry into the cash and the asserted interests in it.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of the cash order. The deprivation order in respect of £4,600 was quashed. The appellant did not pursue the proposed challenge to the forfeiture of his vehicle.

2. Section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 permits a deprivation order where the court is satisfied that seized property was used, or was intended to be used, to commit or facilitate an offence. Cash shown to be working capital for future drug dealing may therefore fall within the section. The court applied the conclusion in R v O’Farrell (1988) 7 Cr.App.R 74 on that point.

3. That potential statutory power did not make the order lawful on the procedure followed. Where the provenance and intended use of the cash were in issue, there had to be a proper inquiry. The appellant needed an opportunity to give evidence if he wished, and the girlfriend who was said to own £400 needed an opportunity to give evidence or make representations.

4. No formal application or properly focused adjudication was apparent. The judge had not clearly rejected the appellant’s explanation for the cash or found that all of it was intended as working capital for future drug dealing. His finding that the appellant was commercially involved in selling drugs was sufficient for sentencing purposes, but it could not substitute for the necessary inquiry before depriving him or another interested person of the cash.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the section 143 deprivation order for £4,600.

• Crown Court at Guildford On 23 February 2017, the appellant pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine with intent to supply. He was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment and a deprivation order was made for the cash. There was no appeal against the custodial sentence.