Reid [2019] EWCA Crim 690

The appellant, Reid faced confiscation proceedings following pleas to conspiracy to supply Class A & B drugs. An order was made in the sum of £1,330,284.20 and Reid and Griffiths appealed with Griffiths as an intervener with an interest in a property.

The issue was in relation to a property and whether Reid had acquired a beneficial interest, and if so, in what amount. The house originally belonged to Griffiths and no beneficial was ascribed to Reid. It was submitted by the prosecution that Reid had contributed to mortgage repayments and other purchases relating to the property creating a resulting trust. It was argued that Griffiths’ inability to pay the expenses demonstrated the existence of the trust. Griffiths argued that she was able to meet the costs but was found to be an unconvincing witness.

The grounds for appeal were that the judge failed to adequately consider the evidence of the forensic accountant, he erred in finding the couple had a common intention to create a trust of property, erred in calculating Reid was the beneficial owner of 75% of the property on the basis of a purported contribution of 75% of the mortgage repayments, and erred in finding the purported contributions were tainted gifts.

Held: “In our view, Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, furnishes authoritative guidance: the quantification of the beneficial share should turn on an objective evaluation of the course of dealings between the parties over the period in question … this approach does not support the conclusion to which the judge came.” Reid’s beneficial interest in the property was reduced from 75 to 50%.