BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Teasdale, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1217 (03 October 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/1217.html Cite as: [2024] EWCA Crim 1217 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT DURHAM
HHJ RACHIM SINGH T20180196
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE MARTIN SPENCER
HIS HONOUR JUDGE DREW KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
____________________
REX | ||
-v - | ||
MALCOLM TEASDALE |
____________________
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTIC MARTIN SPENCER:
(i) A 50% beneficial interest in 2 properties in Seaham, Co Durham.
(ii) A 100% beneficial interest in a Lloyds Bank account in the name of the applicant and encompassing the proceeds/encashment of a pension with the Mineworkers Pension Scheme. The pension was valued at the confiscation hearing in the sum of £53,419.13. In addition, the sum of £15,020.85 had also been paid to this account from the Mineworkers Pension Scheme representing arrears that were owed to the applicant at the point of realisation.
(iv) A 100% interest in 42 Tyman PLC shares currently valued at 267p per share. The shares were valued at the confiscation hearing in the sum of £72.66 (175p per share).
(v) A 100% interest BSD Crown Ltd valued at the confiscation hearing in the sum of £7,334.64 (24p per share).
Ms Fuller further submitted that the statutory conditions for appointment of an Enforcement Receiver pursuant to section 50 of POCA had been met in respect of the applicant, namely:
a. A Confiscation Order had been made;
b. The Confiscation Order had not been satisfied; and
c. The Confiscation Order was not subject to appeal.
(i) The Judge failed to respond to a legal issue that rendered his ruling defective.
(ii) A point of law was ignored causing significant procedural error.
(iii) Fresh information has come to light that affects the legality of both the confiscation and enforcement.
(iv) Granting the Order was a breach of the ECHR and is incompatible.
(v) There has been misconduct by the prosecution, and the punishment regarding confiscation and enforcement has been disproportionate. The Prosecution have been aware since 24 September 2019 that all of the goods have been returned to their rightful owners in pristine condition.
"Your grounds are not reasonably arguable. Your application for leave to appeal against the receivership order is substantially based on an allegation that the Confiscation Order is unlawful. Your challenge to the Confiscation Order has already been determined against you by the Full Court of Appeal: Teasdale [2021] EWCA Crim 987 and Teasdale [2021] EWCA Crim 1974. In any event, it is not reasonably arguable that the agreed Confiscation Order was not compliant with R v Waya [2013] 1 AC 294 or that it was incompatible with article 1 of protocol 1, article 3 or article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, or any other provision of the Convention. Your assertion that you in fact received no benefit as all the goods were returned in pristine condition is baseless and unarguable: it is contrary to the evidence, your agreement on advice and reflection to the Confiscation Order, and the conclusions of the full Court.
It is not reasonably arguable that the judge made any error in concluding that - your challenges to the Confiscation Order having been rejected by the full Court - it was necessary and proportionate to make the receivership order, to ensure that the order of the court is complied with, and the statutory criteria were met. It is misconceived to assert that enforcement of the Confiscation Order breaches your human rights or entails any misconduct on the part of the CPS.
It is also incorrect, and not reasonably arguable, that your wife had no opportunity to make representations. She had a reasonable opportunity to make representations. She was served with the Crown's application to appoint an Enforcement Receiver and informed of the hearing listed on 13 October 2023. She chose not to attend or respond to the Crown's application. On that occasion, the Recorder adjourned the hearing in view of your, and your wife's, absence. Following that hearing the Crown again separately served the application on your wife, and notified her of the adjourned hearing listed on 26 October 2023. Again, she chose not to attend or respond to the Crown's application. On that occasion you attended court and informed the judge that you and your wife had been served with the Crown's application and you would be representing your joint interests."