R v Khuram Janjua
[2024] EWCA Crim 202
R v Malcolm Teasdale
3 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1217
Court of Appeal
Malcolm Teasdale owed a lot of money from a previous conviction. The court ordered someone to seize his assets to pay the debt. Teasdale tried to appeal, claiming unfairness and hardship, but the court rejected his appeal because previous attempts to challenge the debt had already failed.
Key Facts
- •Malcolm Teasdale was convicted of concealing and converting criminal property in 2019, receiving a suspended sentence.
- •A Confiscation Order of £200,103.17 was made in 2020, but remained largely unpaid.
- •Teasdale's appeals against the conviction and Confiscation Order were previously dismissed.
- •In December 2023, an Enforcement Receiver was appointed to seize Teasdale's assets to satisfy the outstanding Confiscation Order.
- •Teasdale appealed the appointment of the Enforcement Receiver, raising five grounds of appeal including procedural errors, fresh information, human rights breaches, and prosecutorial misconduct.
- •Teasdale claimed hardship and homelessness as new grounds for appeal.
- •The previous appeals against the confiscation order were cited as Teasdale [2021] EWCA Crim 987 and Teasdale [2021] EWCA Crim 1974
Legal Principles
The court considers the legality of the Confiscation Order and the proportionality of appointing an Enforcement Receiver under section 50(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, sections 6, 50(2)
The court considers whether previous rulings dismissing challenges to the Confiscation Order are binding.
Court of Appeal precedent
The court assesses whether the grounds of appeal are reasonably arguable and whether the appointment of an Enforcement Receiver is proportionate in light of the unpaid Confiscation Order and available assets.
Case law on appeals and human rights (ECHR)
The court considers whether the hardship faced by the applicant and his wife is a relevant factor in determining the proportionality of the Enforcement Receiver Order.
Case law on proportionality
The court considers whether the agreed Confiscation Order was compliant with R v Waya [2013] 1 AC 294 and compatible with Article 1 of Protocol 1, Article 3 and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
R v Waya [2013] 1 AC 294; European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.
The court agreed with the single judge's reasons for refusing leave to appeal, finding that the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable and that the appointment of an Enforcement Receiver was proportionate.