R v Josephine Iyamu

In confiscation proceedings involving a defendant with a criminal lifestyle, statutory assumptions about property transferred after the relevant day and property held after conviction apply unless the defendant shows that they are incorrect, that applying them would create a serious risk of injustice, or that proportionality is engaged.

The burden lies on the defendant. Proceeds may pass through persons who were not themselves complicit in criminal conduct. Where property comprises land acquired before offending and a later building, the court may treat the building as criminal benefit while allowing for the risk of injustice concerning the land. Apportionment may be a reasonable broad-brush assessment rather than a hard-edged valuation.

The applicant had been convicted of trafficking five Nigerian women into prostitution contrary to section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and of perverting the course of justice by witness intimidation. She was serving a total sentence of 18 years. On 4 March 2022, His Honour Judge Bond made a confiscation order of £183,806.06.

The applicant sought a four-day extension of time to appeal. Her proposed grounds challenged the inclusion of unexplained bank credits, the treatment and valuation of a property in Benin City, Nigeria, the apportionment between its land and building, the specific criminal benefit figure, and the valuation evidence. The central issue was whether any proposed ground disclosed an arguable error giving the appeal a real prospect of success.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for an extension of time was refused. None of the proposed grounds had merit, and an appeal would have no prospect of success.
2. Statutory assumptions. The judge was required to treat the applicant as having a criminal lifestyle. Under s. 10 of POCA 2002, the assumptions concerning property transferred after the relevant day and property held after conviction applied unless rebutted by the applicant, displaced by a serious risk of injustice, or affected by proportionality. The burden of rebuttal lay on her.
3. Bank credits. The judge was entitled to reject the applicant’s explanations for £22,930 of credits to her Barclays account. She had provided no documentary or corroborative evidence, and her evidence was rejected after cross-examination. The fact that approximately £9,925 had come from her husband did not rebut the assumption. Proceeds of crime may pass through one or more persons who are not themselves complicit in the criminal conduct.
4. Land and building. The judge was entitled to find that the applicant owned the Benin City property. The land had been acquired before the offending, and it would have created a serious risk of injustice to assume that the land itself was criminal benefit. The building was different. The applicant gave no evidence about when it was constructed, and her legitimate income and tax return did not explain its cost. She therefore failed to displace the assumption concerning the building.
5. Apportionment and additional grounds. Apportionment between land and building was not a hard-edged valuation exercise. The judge could make a broad-brush assessment of the reduction required to reflect the risk of injustice. The 25 per cent reduction was not unreasonable. Further evidence about the construction date was too late, the specific benefit figure was supported by the victims’ evidence, and the judge was entitled to rely on the professionally prepared valuation in the absence of contrary evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for a four-day extension of time was refused on the ground that the proposed appeal had no prospect of success: [2023] EWCA Crim 1658.
• Confiscation hearing before His Honour Judge Bond: On 4 March 2022, a confiscation order of £183,806.06 was made, representing the benefit figure after the judge found that the applicant had available assets exceeding that sum.