R v Rebecca Thompson
[2023] EWCA Crim 1244
R v Ricard David Love & Anor
3 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 465
Court of Appeal
Two people were convicted of a large-scale benefits fraud. They had to pay back the money they stole. They tried to appeal this, arguing the process was unfair and that some of the money wasn't from the fraud. The appeal court disagreed and said they had to pay back the money.
Key Facts
- •Ms Saintclair convicted of 8 counts of Possession of a False Identity Document, 9 counts of Fraud, and 1 count of Making a Dishonest Representation.
- •Mr Love convicted of 1 count of Fraud and 1 count of Converting Criminal Property.
- •Ms Saintclair sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment plus 8 months consecutively for failing to surrender.
- •Mr Love sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment.
- •Confiscation orders made against both: Ms Saintclair to pay £398,274.97, Mr Love to pay £237,003.73.
- •Applicants appealed both convictions and confiscation orders.
- •The appeals against conviction were dismissed.
- •The appeals against the confiscation orders were dismissed.
- •The prosecution case centered on systematic defrauding of the benefit system using false identities.
- •Mr Love's conviction on Count 20 (converting criminal property) involved £90,000 transferred from Ms Saintclair.
Legal Principles
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) confiscation orders.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Conviction for fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.
Fraud Act 2006
Conviction for possession of false identity documents under the Identity Documents Act 2010.
Identity Documents Act 2010
Right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
European Convention on Human Rights
Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
European Convention on Human Rights (Protocol 1)
Outcomes
Appeals against confiscation orders dismissed.
The court found no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by either applicant. The grounds largely concerned procedural irregularities which the court deemed irrelevant or without impact on the fairness or accuracy of the confiscation orders. The court upheld the judge's findings regarding the benefit derived from criminal activity and the available assets.