Hindley, R. v
July 28, 2011
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RIX
- MR JUSTICE STADLEN
- MR JUSTICE MADDISON
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Probate and Succession
July 28, 2011
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Michael Hindley appealed a confiscation order imposed after his 2008 guilty plea to possessing cannabis with intent to supply. The Crown Court’s order matched the balance of his ING account, but Hindley maintained the money was inherited through his father under a deed of variation dated 25 March 2002. The Full Court granted leave and extended time, and the Court of Appeal received probate, will, banking records, and statements from Hindley and his father. Satisfied by this material, and noting the Crown no longer opposed, the Court found the funds (save for a £500 initial deposit and £60 interest) were inheritance, not criminal benefit, thereby rebutting POCA assumptions. The Court quashed the £209,995.06 order and substituted £23,153.26, allowing 28 days for payment and imposing 12 months in default. A restraint order remained on the ING account pending agreed payment and release of the surplus.
1. LORD JUSTICE RIX: This is the appeal of Mr Michael Hindley, who, on 2 July 2008 in the Crown Court at Aylesbury, before His Honour Judge the Lord Parmoor, pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled drug of class C, namely cannabis, with intent to supply. He was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment with a direction that 57 days spent on remand should count towards sentence. Later, on 18 December 2008 before the same judge, a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was imposed for £209,995.06, or, in default, 32 months' imprisonment.
2. Leave to appeal and an extension of time were granted by the Full Court on 10 March 2011, [2011] EWCA Crim 680 , but Richards LJ, who gave the judgment of this court on that occasion, left it to the court hearing the appeal to decide whether we would admit the further evidence upon which the appellant relies in order to show, albeit belatedly, that the monies in an account at ING bank in the sum of the confiscation order made were not in fact part of the benefits of general criminal conduct, but were the product of an inheritance from his mother, redirected through the appellant's father, following upon a deed of variation made on 25 March 2002.
3. This had always been the appellant's case, but he failed to advance it with the underlying material at the time of the confiscation proceedings in question. He received two adjournments to assist him for this purpose, but on the third occasion he did not attend court and counsel instructed to appear on his behalf on that occasion, although asking for a further adjournment, failed to obtain one from the judge.
4. The details of the appellant's difficulties in assembling the necessary evidence and bank statements, including evidence concerning his mother's will and probate and the deed of variation, are all contained in the documents and evidence before us and have satisfied us, as indeed they have satisfied the Crown, who do not dispute this appeal any longer, that the position has been as the appellant has always stated it was. That evidence explains the passing of time and the difficulties that the appellant has been under in obtaining the evidence in question. Those difficulties were undoubtedly partly of his own making. If the evidence as to where the money in question came from were in any way dubious, it may well be that this further evidence could not successfully be put before us under the terms of section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 .
5.