Ernest, R v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE DAVIS
- MR JUSTICE LEWIS
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, following the conviction of Sam Ernest for 17 counts of fraud. Ernest challenged the benefit calculation and the inclusion of a disputed expenditure amount. The court reduced the recoverable amount from £308,380.29 to £209,280.29, ruling that the £98,400 expenditure was incorrectly included. However, the court upheld that Ernest did not demonstrate that his available assets were less than this figure.
Judgment
Mr Justice Lewis :
This is the judgment of the court.
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal against a confiscation order made by the Crown Court at Kingston-Upon-Thames on 20 December 2013 under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“2002 Act”) following the conviction of the Appellant, Mr Sam Ernest, for 17 offences of fraud. That order required the Appellant to pay the sum of £308, 380.29 within 6 months with a default term of 3 years. The order records that the court had decided that the Appellant had a criminal lifestyle and had obtained a benefit, valued at £308,380.29 as a result of his general criminal conduct. The order records that the available amount, that is the amount that may be realised, was £308,380.29.
The Appellant contends that the judge erred in calculating the amount of benefit. First, he contends that, in part, he was operating a legitimate business providing tickets and related services for entertainment events. He contends that monies received for the goods and services provided as part of that business was not obtained as a result of his general criminal conduct and should not be included within the amount of the benefit. Secondly, the Appellant contends that the Crown Court erred in relying on a specialised index showing the annual expenditure necessary to maintain an acceptable standard of living in order to conclude that the Appellant had additionally incurred expenditure of £98,400 (£16,400 a year for six years) which should be included in the calculation of the value of the benefit. Further, the Appellant contends that the judge erred in concluding that he had assets which were available to pay the sum of £308,380.29. He contends, in effect, that the judge failed to adopt a just and proportionate approach to that assessment and did not address the details of the evidence.
FACTS
The Appellant is a citizen of the United States of America who is now 47 years of age. He came to the United Kingdom in late 2005 on a six month visa. He did not leave the United Kingdom after the expiry of that visa but remained here illegally.
The Offences
On 4 December 2012 at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court, the Appellant pleaded guilty to 17 counts of fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 , and one count of possessing an identity document with an improper intention contrary to section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010 . He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on each of the 17 counts of fraud to be served con