R v John Leonard Freeland & Anor

For fines and prosecution costs, the defendant bears primary responsibility for disclosing financial information enabling the court to assess what can reasonably be paid. The court need not investigate on its own initiative and may draw reasonable inferences from inadequate or deliberate non-disclosure. For an individual, the Sentencing Act 2020 requires an inquiry into means; for an individual or company, the court must take known or apparent means into account.

Fresh financial evidence on appeal must be introduced in proper form, with the required statements and document provenance. Evidence available at sentence but deliberately withheld, or evidence that remains incomplete, unexplained and immaterial, may be refused.

Garden Mill Ltd and its director, John Freeland, appealed from sentences imposed at the Crown Court at Bristol for breaches of planning Stop Notices and Enforcement Notices. The sentences included substantial fines and prosecution costs. The sole ground of appeal concerned their alleged inability to pay.

At sentence, ordered financial information was not provided. The defendants supplied only limited and heavily redacted material. On appeal, they sought informally to rely on further bank statements, accountants’ letters, receivership documents and bankruptcy material as fresh evidence. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge could infer an ability to pay from the inadequate disclosure, and whether the later material could properly be admitted on the sentence appeals.

Both appeals were dismissed. The application to adduce further financial material as fresh evidence was refused.

1. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, the court must inquire into an individual’s financial circumstances before fixing a fine. It must take the financial circumstances of any offender, including a company, into account so far as they are known or appear to it. Although there is no equivalent duty to inquire into a company’s finances, corporate defendants remain primarily responsible for providing information about what they can reasonably afford. The approach explained in R v North Allerton Magistrates’ Court ex parte Dove [2000] 1 Cr App (S) 136 was applied: the court need not undertake an inquisitorial investigation and may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and circumstances.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to infer that both appellants had sufficient means. The material supplied was incomplete, redacted, unsigned and unsupported. The deliberate failure to provide further information despite an order and a further opportunity justified an adverse inference. Mr Freeland’s decision to represent himself did not support an assumption that he lacked substantial assets or income.
3. The fresh-evidence application failed for three independent reasons. It was not made in proper form: under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, a proper application required Form W and signed witness statements explaining the evidence and the provenance of documents. Much of the material had also been available at sentence and had deliberately not been adduced, without a reasonable explanation. Finally, the incomplete and unexplained material did not provide a ground for allowing the appeals under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1968.
4. The additional material raised further questions about undisclosed accounts, transfers, assets, liabilities and related companies. It therefore did not establish the appellants’ financial positions or undermine the sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 16 July 2026, dismissed both sentence appeals and refused the application to adduce fresh evidence: [2026] EWCA Crim 1006 .
• Crown Court at Bristol: On 19 August 2024, His Honour Judge Peter Blair KC sentenced the company and Mr Freeland to fines and ordered them to pay prosecution costs.