R v Malcolm Teasdale
[2024] EWCA Crim 1217
R v Miroslav Pesko
12 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1568
Court of Appeal
A man was ordered to pay a large sum of money, and he tried to appeal. He argued his lawyer was bad, the punishment was too harsh, and he couldn't get his money from Russia because of sanctions. The court said he should have presented all his evidence in the first place and refused his appeal. They also pointed out he could try a different legal route to deal with the Russian money problem.
Key Facts
- •Miroslav Pesko was convicted of conspiracy to steal Mercedes Sprinter vans.
- •A confiscation order of £211,259.50 was made against him.
- •Pesko applied for leave to appeal, arguing inadequate legal representation, excessive default imprisonment, and inability to access funds in Russia due to sanctions.
- •Pesko represented himself in the appeal, citing various reasons for non-attendance and delays.
- •The judge in the original confiscation hearing found Pesko had benefited from criminal conduct and had a criminal lifestyle.
- •The main dispute was over the 'available amount' calculable from his assets, with the prosecution identifying 'hidden assets'.
- •Pesko claimed many transactions were legitimate business dealings, supported by some invoices but not all.
- •Pesko appealed, arguing further invoices existed that would significantly reduce the available amount.
- •Pesko waived privilege, and his former counsel's response disputed many of his claims regarding the omitted invoices.
Legal Principles
Fresh evidence will only be admitted on appeal if it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice (s.23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968).
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23
The purpose of default imprisonment in confiscation orders is to secure payment, not to impose additional punishment. Personal circumstances are not the primary consideration.
Case law cited (not explicitly named in document)
To challenge a confiscation order due to changed circumstances affecting asset realisation, an application to the Crown Court under section 23 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for a 'certificate of inadequacy' is the appropriate remedy.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 23
Outcomes
Leave to appeal refused.
The court found the appeal lacked merit. The fresh evidence was not admissible under s.23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, having been available before the original hearing. The default imprisonment was proportionate, and the applicant's inability to access Russian funds was not a valid ground for appeal given the existing legal avenues.
First ground of appeal (inadequate legal representation leading to inaccurate 'available amount') dismissed.
The applicant failed to provide necessary documentation before and during the original hearing, the judge's findings were based on the available evidence, and even with the additional invoices, it was unlikely to significantly alter the outcome.
Second ground of appeal (excessive default imprisonment) dismissed.
The two-year default imprisonment was proportionate to the confiscation order amount and aligned with statutory limits. The court is not primarily concerned with personal circumstances in default imprisonment.
Third ground of appeal (inability to access funds in Russia) dismissed.
The applicant's inability to access funds in Russia due to sanctions was not a valid ground of appeal, as the funds were transferred before sanctions were imposed. The proper recourse would be an application for a 'certificate of inadequacy' to the Crown Court.