Ian Edwards [2019] EWCA Crim 1445

The applicant was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to offences of conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs. A confiscation order was made on terms agreed and approved by the court, and he was ordered to pay £80,150 within 3 months. He appealed against the terms of the order.

One ground of appeal was the judge was wrong in law to rule that he could not take account of the defendant’s “business expenses” when it came to calculating the available amount. The judge had expressed “surprise in robust terms” as to what was stated in the s17 response, namely that approximately £76,000 could and should have been deducted to reflect the defendant’s payments to his “co-workers and his suppliers”.

Held: the judge had not made a ruling in law, he had merely made a preliminary indication and expressly sought justification for the proposition being made. The applicant took advantage of an adjournment and decided not to pursue any legal submissions or call evidence and agreed to the terms of the order. It was submitted that his counsel had been placed in a difficult position. The Court did not agree; counsel was given the opportunity to make a full and proper application and submission. It would have been an uphill task for him to have adduced evidence which would have led to a reduction in the amount available. This was not a case in which it could be said that there was negligence by the legal representation which would have made any difference. The order was safe.