Butler, R (on the application of) v Leeds Magistrates’ Court
[2023] EWHC 3420 (Admin)
Matthew Hargreaves v Powys County Council
12 December 2022
[2022] EWHC 3176 (Admin)
High Court
A man didn't pay a large court fine. He said he tried, but the judge didn't believe him and sent him to jail because he thought the man was deliberately avoiding paying.
Key Facts
- •Matthew Hargreaves (appellant) was given a confiscation order of £1,096,500 following a conviction for fraudulent business.
- •The order included interests in properties jointly owned with his wife and a friend, deemed 'tainted gifts'.
- •Hargreaves failed to make any payments within the given timeframe.
- •Various attempts were made to negotiate payment, involving multiple solicitors and loan offers, but none materialized.
- •The District Judge found Hargreaves' failure to pay was due to wilful refusal, considering alternative enforcement methods inappropriate.
- •The District Judge activated the default imprisonment term.
Legal Principles
A magistrates’ court may not issue a warrant of commitment in default of payment unless satisfied the default is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect, and all other enforcement methods are inappropriate.
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, sections 82(4)(b) and 77
The amount due under a confiscation order is enforced as if it were a fine.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), section 35(2)
Third party rights may be considered at the enforcement stage, but a failure to recover the value of a tainted gift is not a basis to reduce the amount payable.
R v Hilton [2020] UKSC 29 and R v Johnson [2016] 2 Cr.App.R(S) 38
Outcomes
The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision.
The District Judge was entitled to find wilful refusal based on the evidence of inaction despite available assets and lack of credible attempts to pay.
The High Court found the District Judge was correct in deeming alternative enforcement methods (e.g., appointing a receiver) inappropriate.
Given the lack of payment and attempts to negotiate, appointing a receiver would have been disproportionately costly and unlikely to succeed.
The High Court found the District Judge properly considered his discretion to postpone imprisonment.
There was no prospect of the situation changing with a postponement given the lack of progress.