R v Julie Michelle Pearce

A renewed application for leave to appeal against an agreed confiscation order cannot be used to relitigate the benefit or available amount. Fresh evidence must be credible, capable of affecting the result, and supported by a good reason why it was not adduced in the original confiscation proceedings. An applicant who agreed the benefit figure after considering the prosecution evidence with legal advice cannot ordinarily revive the same attribution dispute. Where the available amount was accepted to exceed the benefit, a renewed challenge to property valuations does not provide an arguable ground unless it could affect the order. The application was therefore refused.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cardiff to offences arising from involvement in illegal puppy breeding. On 30 September 2024, the Crown Court made a confiscation order of £60,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by agreement. The agreed benefit was £60,000 and the available amount was accepted to exceed it.

The applicant later challenged the benefit figure, asserting that £30,000 had been received by a co-defendant, and disputed valuations of properties said to constitute the available amount. A single judge refused leave. On renewal, the central issue was whether the proposed fresh evidence and challenges made the grounds reasonably arguable.

1. Application refused. The court agreed with the single judge that the application to admit fresh evidence was wholly unarguable and that the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable.
2. A renewed application for leave cannot be used to relitigate an agreed confiscation outcome. Fresh evidence must be credible, capable of making a difference to the result, and supported by a good reason why it was not called in the original confiscation proceedings.
3. The applicant had previously advanced the argument that only limited sums were directly attributable to the offending. A contested hearing had been listed to determine the benefit and available amount. After considering the prosecution evidence, which put the benefit at £75,067.72, with legal advice, she agreed a benefit figure of £60,000. Her renewed attempt to argue that £30,000 had been received by her daughter therefore did not provide an arguable basis for reopening the agreed outcome.
4. The available amount had also been agreed at £60,000 because the applicant solely owned unencumbered properties in Wales, Gran Canaria and Valencia, and the available amount was accepted to exceed the benefit. Later challenges to the property valuations, including the valuation of the Welsh home, were irrelevant because the available amount remained more than sufficient on any view.
5. The asserted changes in health, the availability of money held in property and the reference to records that could have been produced earlier did not satisfy the fresh-evidence threshold. Leave to appeal was refused.

1. Crown Court at Cardiff: On 30 September 2024, the court made a £60,000 confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by agreement.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), single judge: Leave to appeal was refused.
3. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave was refused because the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable.