R v Malcolm Teasdale
[2024] EWCA Crim 1217
R v Khuram Janjua
16 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 202
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of drug offences and had to pay back money. Years later, the amount he had to pay was increased. He tried to appeal, arguing the initial amount was wrong, but the court said he missed his chance to appeal that earlier and the increase was justified. His appeal was unsuccessful.
Key Facts
- •Khurram Janjua pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply Class A drugs in October 2011 and received a 3-year 9-month sentence.
- •A confiscation order was made in December 2012, with a benefit figure of £120,000 and an available amount of £3,874.
- •Janjua made minimal payments, leading to a 58-day prison sentence in default of payment in 2014.
- •In April 2023, the Crown successfully varied the confiscation order, increasing the available amount to £66,517.76 based on increased property value and a separate account.
- •Janjua's appeal against the variation was refused by a single judge and then renewed before the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
When a confiscation order is agreed between parties, the court will only interfere in exceptional circumstances.
[2021] EWCA Crim 1797
Section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allows for variation of confiscation orders based on further investigations.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
A judge cannot be expected to address an argument that was not raised before them.
This case
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave to appeal.
The court found that the argument regarding the original benefit figure was not raised before the judge, was not arguable given prior court decisions, and was ultimately a matter of agreed compromise that was not open for reconsideration. The other grounds of appeal were abandoned.