R v Malcolm Teasdale

An application for leave to appeal against an order appointing an Enforcement Receiver cannot be used to reopen challenges to an underlying confiscation order that have already been rejected by the Full Court. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, an unpaid confiscation order that is not subject to appeal may justify enforcement receivership where the order is necessary and proportionate to secure compliance. Repetition of rejected arguments does not make them reasonably arguable. Extreme hardship and homelessness did not make the order disproportionate or become relevant matters. The Convention objections were unarguable. A separately served spouse had a reasonable opportunity to make representations despite choosing not to attend or respond.

The applicant pleaded guilty to offences under section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and received a suspended sentence. A confiscation order was subsequently made, requiring payment of the available realisable amount, with imprisonment in default. Earlier applications concerning the conviction and confiscation order had been refused by the Full Court in [2021] EWCA Crim 987 and [2021] EWCA Crim 1974.

The Crown Court at Durham later appointed an Enforcement Receiver under section 50(2) of the Act. Steyn J refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed that application, relying on alleged legal and procedural errors, fresh information, human-rights incompatibility, prosecutorial misconduct, disproportionality, hardship and lack of opportunity for his wife to make representations. The central issue was whether any ground was reasonably arguable.

Application refused. The court granted an extension of time for the renewed application because the delay was not significant, but refused the application for leave to appeal.

1. The applicant’s grounds substantially challenged the underlying confiscation order. Those challenges had already been rejected by the Full Court. The renewed application could not be used to reopen them, and repeating previously rejected arguments did not make them meritorious or reasonably arguable.
2. The statutory conditions for appointment of an Enforcement Receiver under section 50(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were met. A Confiscation Order had been made, remained unsatisfied and was not subject to appeal. The Crown Court was entitled to regard appointment of the receiver as necessary and proportionate to secure compliance.
3. It was not reasonably arguable that the agreed Confiscation Order was non-compliant with R v Waya [2013] 1 AC 294, incompatible with the relevant Convention protections, or affected by prosecutorial misconduct.
4. The applicant’s extreme hardship and homelessness did not render the receivership order disproportionate and were not relevant matters requiring a different conclusion.
5. The applicant’s wife had a reasonable opportunity to make representations. She had been served with the application and notified of the hearings, but chose not to attend or respond. The assertion that she had no such opportunity was therefore unarguable.

The court agreed with Steyn J’s reasons and refused the renewed application.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 3 October 2024, the court granted an extension of time but refused the renewed application for leave to appeal: [2024] EWCA Crim 1217.
2. Single judge: Steyn J refused leave to appeal against the enforcement receivership order.
3. Crown Court at Durham: HHJ Singh appointed an Enforcement Receiver on 18 December 2023.
4. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Earlier applications concerning the confiscation order and conviction were refused in [2021] EWCA Crim 987 and [2021] EWCA Crim 1974.