R v Rebecca Thompson

For confiscation purposes, a person holds land only if they have a legal estate, beneficial interest or power within Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 84. Sole legal ownership gives rise to a starting point of sole beneficial ownership. The party alleging that the non-owner has a beneficial interest bears the burden of proving it.

A confiscation court must determine the alleged interest by applying principles of beneficial ownership, including any relevant common intention. It must not substitute the discretionary asset-distribution exercise under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Wolverhampton Crown Court to three offences of dishonestly making false representations. In confiscation proceedings, the Crown Court found that she had a 45 per cent beneficial interest in a home held in her husband’s sole name and made a confiscation order for £35,922.47.

She sought an extension of time and leave to appeal. The Crown did not oppose either application. The central issue was whether the judge had used the correct legal approach to deciding whether she held an interest in the property for the purposes of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 84.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal. It quashed the confiscation order and made no order for remittal.
2. Under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 84, property is held for confiscation purposes only if the relevant person holds an interest in it. In the case of land, the interest must be a legal estate, beneficial interest or power.
3. Where land is in one person’s sole legal ownership, the starting point is that person’s sole beneficial ownership. The non-owner bears the burden of showing that they have any beneficial interest: Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17. The Crown Court had not approached the matter on that basis.
4. The judge had also failed to consider whether the applicant and her husband had a common intention that she should share the beneficial interest. That was a necessary question when assessing the alleged interest: Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53.
5. The judge had instead been invited to apply the discretionary distribution exercise under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. That Act was irrelevant to the statutory confiscation question. Although remittal would ordinarily have followed under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 11(3)(a), the Crown did not seek it in light of the delay, likely sums involved, and the applicant’s terminal illness and incapacity.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 1244, the court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the confiscation order, and declined to remit the matter.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 28 October 2019, the court found that the applicant held a 45 per cent beneficial interest in the property and made a confiscation order for £35,922.47 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 11 November 2015, the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of dishonestly making false representations. On 1 February 2016, she received concurrent sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment.