Stephen Pigott v Crown Prosecution Service

A certificate of inadequacy under Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 83, requires the applicant to prove on the balance of probabilities that his realisable property is inadequate to meet the outstanding confiscation sum.

The application concerns the applicant’s realisable assets as a whole when the application is made. It cannot reopen findings made in the confiscation proceedings or provide a second opportunity to advance evidence and arguments that could have been raised then. A renewed application may nevertheless be entertained where it relies on materially new information or evidence. The mere failure of assets to realise their estimated value is insufficient. The applicant must give a credible and substantiated account of what happened to assets previously found to exist.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to cheating the revenue and money laundering and was subject to a confiscation order under the pre-2003 confiscation regime. The order included tangible assets and hidden assets valued at £1 million. Most of the identified tangible assets realised substantially less than their estimated value, and a large balance remained outstanding.

A first application for a certificate of inadequacy had been dismissed in 2021. The applicant made a further application, relying on explanations concerning the disposal of tangible assets, overseas finances and the alleged absence or dissipation of hidden assets. The issues were whether the renewed application was an abuse of process, whether it impermissibly challenged the confiscation findings, and whether inadequacy had been proved.

1. Application entertained. The court declined to treat the second application as an abuse of process. The earlier application had not considered all the material now before the court, and the present application was materially expanded with supporting evidence. A simple attempt to reargue the same case on substantially the same material would be abusive.
2. Statutory burden and scope. Under section 83 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the applicant had to prove on the balance of probabilities that his realisable property was inadequate to pay the outstanding amount. The inquiry concerned all realisable assets at the date of the application, including assets acquired after the confiscation order.
3. Limits of the application. The applicant could not challenge findings made at the confiscation hearing, including the finding as to the value or existence of realisable assets. Those matters could be challenged only by appeal against the confiscation order. He had to demonstrate what had happened to assets found to exist and establish a genuine post-order change in his financial circumstances. Section 83 was not a second bite of the cherry.
4. Evidence and outcome. The shortfall between the estimated and realised value of the tangible assets did not itself establish inadequacy. The applicant’s account of his finances and circumstances abroad conflicted with an earlier account. The prosecution evidence concerning the hidden assets was substantial, while the applicant’s explanation was insufficiently corroborated. He had not established that the hidden assets had been dissipated or were unavailable. The application for a certificate of inadequacy was therefore refused.