R v Rebecca Thompson
[2023] EWCA Crim 1244
Ronan Hughes & Anor v R
12 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 357
Court of Appeal
Ronan Hughes was ordered to pay money after a manslaughter conviction. A judge decided he had a share in a house in Ireland to help pay this. The higher court disagreed, saying there wasn't enough proof of this share. They sent the case back to a lower court to be decided again with more evidence.
Key Facts
- •Ronan Hughes pleaded guilty to 39 counts of manslaughter and conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration.
- •He was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.
- •Confiscation proceedings followed, focusing on the value of his assets, including a property in Ireland.
- •The property in question was a house built on land owned by his mother, Catherine Hughes.
- •Disputes arose regarding the extent of Hughes' interest in the property and its realizable value.
- •Catherine Hughes was joined as an interested party under Section 10A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Legal Principles
Lifestyle provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 apply to calculate benefit from criminal conduct.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s6
In confiscation proceedings, practical difficulties in realizing assets are not relevant to determining available amount.
Case law cited in the judgment (not explicitly named)
A house built on land becomes part of the land and belongs to the landowner; paying for construction doesn't automatically grant an equitable interest.
Irish and English Land Law
A common intention constructive trust requires an actual shared intention for a beneficial interest in the property.
Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776
Proprietary estoppel requires a promise or assurance given by the legal owner.
Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27; Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776
Finding an 'equity' doesn't automatically determine a proprietary interest; remedies can be flexible (e.g., monetary award, right to remain in occupation).
Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29; Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
Court of Appeal has the power to remit a case to the Crown Court for a rehearing under certain circumstances.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s32(2A); Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s11(3A); R v Pawelski [2023] EWCA Crim 653
Outcomes
The confiscation order was quashed.
Insufficient evidence supported the judge's finding of the applicant's proprietary interest in the Irish property.
The matter was remitted to the Crown Court for a fresh hearing.
To allow for a rehearing with appropriate evidence and consideration of all parties' interests to avoid injustice.