Halliday v R
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE
- MR JUSTICE COULSON
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted of fraud and faced a confiscation order requiring her to repay £53,703.41. She contested that only £14,610 was related to her crimes, not the additional £39,093.41 from mortgage benefits. Upon reviewing new evidence and the factual circumstances of mortgage applications, the court found that the assumptions made about the appellant's criminal conduct were incorrect and would pose a risk of injustice. The confiscation order was reduced to £14,610.
Judgment
Lord Justice McCombe:
At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal on 28 March 2014 we informed the parties that the appeal would be allowed for reasons to be given in a judgment that would be handed down. We now give that judgment.
On 6 August 2007 in the South East Staffordshire Magistrates Court the appellant pleaded guilty to five charges of fraud contrary to s.35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 20 December 2007 in the Crown Court at Stafford she was sentenced by HHJ Tonking to 8 months imprisonment, suspended for two years, in respect of two of the charges so committed. No separate penalty was imposed in respect of the other charges.
On 7 January 2009 in the same Crown Court, before Mr Recorder Thomas (as we understand he then was), a confiscation order was made against the appellant in the sum of £53,749.41 (later amended to £53,703.41) to be paid within 6 months with a term of 18 months imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the other sentence, in default of payment. The sum was ordered to be paid within 6 months. We are told that the required sum under that order has now been paid. It was accepted that £14,610 had been obtained by the specific offences committed. It is contended for the appellant that she was, therefore, wrongly ordered to pay the balance of £39,093.41. She now appeals against the confiscation order by leave of the Full Court granted on 6 April 2011.
It is not necessary to say anything about the facts underlying the tax credit offences. What is in issue before us is the confiscation order alone.
That order assessed the value of the benefit, obtained by the appellant from criminal conduct, at £473,269, with the available amount to be realised (under the order as amended) being £53,703.41.
At the confiscation hearing the Crown was contending that the total benefit accruing to the appellant from criminal conduct was £1,147,807.90. The appellant by contrast contended that the benefit was limited to the sums arising from the specific tax credit offences alone, then assessed at £13,189.66 (or by the Crown at £14,650).
As the learned Recorder observed the principal issue before the Crown Court was as to the effect on the benefit obtained by the appellant in the acquisition (with the assistance of a mortgage loan) on 11 June 2004 by herself and her husband/partner, Mr Ian Coppin, of a property known as “The Sanctuary” at Newchurch, Hoar Cross, near Burton-on-Trent i