The defendant had admitted supplying cocaine and possession. In searches of his home, police found drugs and andpound;13,880 cash on one occasion and andpound;600 on another. His basis of plea, however, was that he had allowed his home to be used for the six month period charged in the indictment as a safe house for the storage of money for someone else; and that the drugs found were for his own use. The issue on the confiscation proceedings was whether the substantial sums of money passing through the defendant’s bank account in the previous six years were the proceeds of drug trafficking. The sentencing judge applied the statutory assumptions in section 10, disbelieved the defendant, who gave evidence, and found that the relevant sums amounted to andpound;51,345. It was submitted on appeal that because Lazarus’s basis of plea was accepted, there must be a serious risk of injustice if the statutory assumption was made in relation to any money passing through his hands other than during the six-month period when he admitted that he was involved in the supply of cocaine by storing money for the dealer.
Held: The basis of plea was not inconsistent with prior drug trafficking, the Crown had not agreed that there had been no previous trafficking, the defendant had known perfectly well from shortly after the acceptance of his plea that the Crown were seeking to rely on the statutory assumptions and had had ample opportunity to rebut them. The confiscation order in the amount found by the judge was upheld (but corrected).
Citations:
[2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 98, [2004] EWCA Crim 2297
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Lunnon CACD 2004
The defendant admitted conspiring to supply cannabis on the basis that he had derived no financial benefit from his involvement in the conspiracy, although he had been promised andpound;200 for his role in transporting a sum of money for the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bakewell, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant faced allegations of evading duty on the importing of substantial quantities of cigarettes. A confiscation order was made. HMRC appealed saying it was too small a sum.
Held: ‘the liability of a smuggler who evades duty which he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.237580
