King, R. v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE FULFORD
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAKIN
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the appellant pleaded guilty to misleadingly selling used cars as a private seller. He was sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid work and later received a confiscation order based on his business turnover. The appeal focused on whether this order was disproportionate under A1P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court upheld the confiscation order, confirming that such orders can be based on gross turnover in cases where the entire business model is illegal, rejecting the appeal on proportionality grounds.
Judgment
Lord Justice Fulford :
Introduction
On 9 September 2010 in the Crown Court at Wood Green the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of falsely claiming or creating the impression that a trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, contrary to Regulations 12, 13 and Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (count 1).
On 8 March 2011 he received a community sentence comprising a 100-hour unpaid work requirement.
On 21 August 2012 he was ordered to pay a confiscation order in the sum of £109,970 within 6 months, pursuant to section 6 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“ POCA 2002”). The default term was set at 2 years’ imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay prosecution costs of £8,000.
Before this court he appeals against the confiscation element of his sentence by leave of the single judge who also granted an extension of time.
The Facts
The appellant was in the business of buying and selling used cars under the trading name Winton Cars. Between 26 May 2008 and 27 February 2009 he advertised and sold 58 vehicles as a private seller, whereas in reality this formed part of his business activities. The reason the appellant represented that these were private sales was to avoid providing a guarantee or warranty.
We note that the appellant pleaded guilty on the basis (which was not accepted by the court) that he mistakenly believed that because he had no business premises or partners he was selling the vehicles as a private seller. He suggested he had not attempted to deprive the purchasers of their consumer rights.
The Confiscation Proceedings
It was agreed that this was not a criminal lifestyle case and the benefit figure relied on by the prosecution was the turnover of the business: £109,970. The judge observed during the course of his judgment that the net trading profit was approximately £11,140.
There was an issue in the court below as regards the appellant’s realisable assets. This is only of historic interest because it is not an issue raised on this appeal. Put shortly, the realisable assets were assessed as being £109,970, namely the equity in a property at 1 Colne Way, Watford (which was owned by the appellant) and £16,000, the value of the vehicles held in stock at the time of his arrest. The appellant’s case – which the judge did not accept – was that his stepmother, Anne King, had an equitable interest in the property because she had advanced