Ian Edwards [2019] EWCA Crim 1445

In R v Ian Michael Edwards [2019] EWCA Crim 1445 the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against the terms of a confiscation order imposed following convictions for conspiracy to supply class A and class B drugs.

Mr Edwards had been sentenced on 26 April 2016 by His Honour Judge Paul Thomas QC at Swansea Crown Court to a total of fourteen years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas. The case concerned two organised crime groups, one operating in Merseyside and the other in South and West Wales. Mr Edwards headed the Merseyside group and was responsible for facilitating the supply of large quantities of cocaine into South and West Wales. He had direct contact with the South and West Wales members and received orders from the head of that group, a man named Roberts. He organised delivery of the drugs through a network of couriers and was also responsible for trafficking drugs to other organised crime groups throughout the United Kingdom. The conspiracies operated between November 2014 and November 2015. During that time just over 2.5 kilograms of cocaine were seized, with purity ranging from sixty-five per cent to eighty-one per cent. However the prosecution case was that this figure did not represent the total amount of drugs trafficked. On the basis of thirty-four trips the street value of the drugs transported from Liverpool to South Wales throughout the conspiracy was originally estimated at £18.5 million.

On 27 April 2018 Judge Thomas made a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 on terms which were ultimately agreed and approved by the court. Mr Edwards was ordered to pay £80,150 within three months or in default to serve nine months’ imprisonment. The prosecution accepted that the benefit figure was £2,021,600. The parties agreed that there was an available amount of £103,500, comprising hidden assets of £100,000 and two watches worth £3,500. After deducting the value of the watches which had already been seized and forfeited and a sum of £23,350 in cash also already seized, the confiscation order reflected the outstanding available balance of £80,150. On 25 March 2015 police had executed a search warrant at Mr Edwards’s home address. Items seized included the cash of £23,350 and a mobile telephone containing images showing a large quantity of cash stored in a kitchen cupboard at the premises, estimated by agreement to show at least one hundred bundles of £1,000. The prosecution contended that the £100,000 formed part of the available amount as a hidden asset being the proceeds of drug dealing.

Mr Edwards challenged the confiscation order on the ground that the judge was wrong in law to rule that he could not take account of business expenses when calculating the available amount. The transcript showed that during a preliminary discussion to clarify outstanding issues the judge expressed surprise in robust terms at what was stated in the defence section 17 response, namely that it was being contended that after the deduction of the £23,350 which had been found, the remaining balance of approximately £76,000 could and should have been deducted to reflect the defendant’s payments to his co-workers and his suppliers. In the original grounds of appeal it was submitted that this amounted to a ruling and one that was incorrect as a matter of law, and further that Mr Edwards was unable to have the opportunity to put forward his case and evidence on this point.

Mr Hickey appeared for Mr Edwards before the Court of Appeal and very properly and realistically accepted that what occurred did not amount to a ruling in law. The court agreed. The judge had merely made a preliminary indication; indeed, at page 6B of the transcript the judge expressly sought justification for the proposition being made. The judge was entitled to be provided with assistance from counsel as to any relevant authority, and given the esoteric and sometimes unexpected complexities of confiscation proceedings, he was obviously not to be criticised. Mr Edwards took advantage of the adjournment properly afforded by the judge and decided not to pursue any legal submissions or call evidence, but instead agreed to the terms of the order. It was submitted by Mr Hickey that it could be said that counsel, Mr Sharpe, had been placed in a difficult position. The court respectfully did not agree. The judge very properly afforded counsel the opportunity to make a full and proper application and submission, citing the appropriate authorities. Secondly, Mr Sharpe was afforded the opportunity to review the evidence with Mr Edwards.

The court considered that it would have been an uphill task, given the circumstances of the case, for Mr Edwards to have adduced evidence which would have led to a reduction in the amount available. The Respondent’s Notice highlighted the inconsistencies with Mr Edwards’s account. It was not suggested that there was any documentary or other evidence available apart from Mr Edwards’s own account which may have made any difference. Again, Mr Hickey very properly conceded that it could not be said in this case that had Mr Edwards been afforded the opportunity to give evidence it would have made any difference to the end result. It was also properly recognised that this was not a case in which it could be said that there was negligence by the legal representation at first instance which would have made any difference. The high watermark of Mr Hickey’s submissions was that perhaps the combined effect of the indication by the judge and the failure to adduce evidence might have meant a different outcome. Again, it was rightly conceded there was little weight in that argument.

The court was quite satisfied that the order was safe in all the circumstances. Accordingly, for the reasons set out by the learned single judge the court agreed and endorsed that ruling in refusing the application itself. In short, the appeal against the confiscation order was refused, the court holding that the judge had not made a premature ruling, that Mr Edwards had agreed to the order after being afforded a proper opportunity to make submissions and call evidence, and that no different outcome would have resulted had he done so.

Yu and Lin [2015] EWCA Crim 1076