Panayi, R. v

For confiscation based on particular criminal conduct, the benefit must result from, or be connected with, the offence charged and proved or admitted. The court cannot use confiscation proceedings to extend that conduct to other uncharged offending, even where there is evidence of a continuing breach.

A charge alleging breach of an enforcement notice on a stated day, qualified by “on or about”, remains a single-day charge. A confiscation order must therefore be confined to the benefit obtained on that day. In sentencing for planning offences, coercing compliance may be important, but it is neither the sole nor necessarily the principal objective.

The appellant was convicted in the magistrates’ court of breaching an enforcement notice concerning an unauthorised roof extension, contrary to Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The charge alleged the breach on or about 18 February 2016.

At the Crown Court at Blackfriars, a confiscation order of £95,920 was made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, calculated from rental income received over a lengthy period. The appellant was also fined £25,000. He appealed both the confiscation order and sentence.

The central issue was whether, despite a single-day charge, the confiscation benefit could include rent obtained during earlier years of non-compliance with the enforcement notice.

1. The appeal against confiscation was allowed. The order for £95,920 was quashed and replaced by an order for £58, representing one day’s rent. The appeal against the £25,000 fine was dismissed.

2. The wording of the charge, alleging an offence “on or about” 18 February 2016, identified criminal conduct committed on a single day. The qualification allowed latitude as to the precise day; it did not convert the allegation into a charge covering an extended period. Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 179(6), expressly permitted the prosecutor to charge either a day or a longer period. The prosecutor chose a single day.

3. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, particular criminal conduct is confined to conduct constituting the offence or offences concerned. Benefit must be property obtained as a result of, or in connection with, that conduct. Those provisions did not permit the court to find further and more extensive offences and confiscate the benefit of them.

4. R v Sangha [2008] EWCA Crim 2562 did not assist the prosecution. Although a confiscation judge may make additional factual findings consistently with a verdict, that power does not enlarge the statutory meaning of particular criminal conduct. On these facts, rent received from 2005 or 2007 onwards was not obtained in connection with the single-day offence in February 2016.

5. The remaining confiscation grounds, including proportionality and the effect of the council’s 2007 letter, did not require determination. As to sentence, the appellant’s prolonged deliberate non-compliance, financial motivation and relevant planning convictions justified the fine. Coercion into compliance was a relevant sentencing aim but not the only or necessarily principal one.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against the confiscation order, quashed the £95,920 order and substituted £58; dismissed the sentence appeal: [2019] EWCA Crim 413.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: On 15 January 2018, made a confiscation order of £95,920 and imposed a fine of £25,000.
• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: On 26 September 2016, convicted the appellant of breaching an enforcement notice and committed him to the Crown Court for confiscation and sentence.