R v Joel Salem & Anor

On a committal to the Crown Court for confiscation and sentence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Crown Court has its indictment-level sentencing powers where the magistrates’ court also committed the defendant for sentence. A committal may be established from the whole court record and surrounding circumstances, rather than from one certificate alone. Rent received is the financial benefit of letting property; later expenditure, including mortgage payments, does not convert it into a mere net-profit calculation. A sentencing judge may make different financial findings from earlier confiscation proceedings where later evidence reveals concealment. Appellate intervention requires a clear error or conclusions unavailable on the evidence. Prosecution costs may be ordered where the defendant has means to pay and has caused substantial wasted costs.

The appellants were convicted of failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice after continuing to let seven flats where planning permission allowed four. They received confiscation orders in September 2023 and substantial fines and prosecution costs in the Crown Court in February 2024. A prior case-stated appeal to the Divisional Court was unsuccessful: [2021] EWHC 2530 (Admin).

Leave was granted on the challenge to the Crown Court’s sentencing powers and, on renewal, on the challenge to the costs orders. The appellants argued that the Crown Court’s fine was capped for part of the offending period, that earlier confiscation findings were binding, and that the prosecution had not succeeded in the confiscation proceedings. The central issues were the effect of the committal under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and whether the fines and costs were properly imposed.

1. Outcome and leave. The court granted leave on Ground 4, refused leave on Grounds 2, 3, 5 and 6, and dismissed the appeals on Grounds 1 and 4. The fines and costs orders therefore remained undisturbed.
2. Sentencing powers. Under sections 70 and 71 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, where the magistrates’ court commits a defendant for confiscation and states, or in substance decides, that it would also have committed the defendant for sentence under section 14(2) of the Sentencing Code, the Crown Court has the sentencing powers available on conviction on indictment. If that sentencing committal is not made, section 71(3) limits the Crown Court to the magistrates’ powers. The court held that the register, committal record, open-court circumstances and the parties’ conduct established a committal for sentence. The absence of a separate statement in the certificate did not create a procedural defect.
3. Fine and financial benefit. The amendment to section 179(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 removed the £20,000 summary-conviction ceiling from 15 March 2015. The court approved the broad sentencing approach described in R v Roderick Bloor [2020] EWCA Crim 402. It further stated, as guidance for any future case, that the financial benefit from letting property is the rent received. Subsequent mortgage payments or other expenditure do not alter that benefit into a net-profit figure.
4. Earlier findings and appellate review. A defendant who has concealed financial information cannot rely on an earlier, different confiscation finding to bind the sentencing court where fuller evidence is later available. An appellant challenging findings made after an extensive hearing, documentary review and cross-examination faces a high threshold and must show that the conclusions were not properly open to the judge.
5. Costs. Applying the principle recognised in R v Wiseman [2023] EWCA Crim 1363, the court held that precise findings of financial position were unnecessary, provided the judge was satisfied that each defendant had the means to pay. The modest confiscation orders did not show that the prosecution had failed. The costs proceedings had been prolonged by the appellants’ delay, obfuscation and incomplete disclosure. The judge was entitled to order substantial costs, and had exercised his discretion correctly. The different circumstances in R v Rance [2013] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 123 did not require a different result.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2025] EWCA Crim 1602, leave was granted on Ground 4, refused on Grounds 2, 3, 5 and 6, and the appeals on Grounds 1 and 4 were dismissed.
• Divisional Court of the Administrative Court. A case-stated appeal against the convictions was unsuccessful: [2021] EWHC 2530 (Admin).
• Crown Court at Wood Green. Confiscation orders were made on 14 September 2023. Fines and prosecution costs were imposed on 27 February 2024.
• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court. The appellants were convicted on 16 June 2020 of failing to comply with an enforcement notice.