R v Julie Michelle Pearce

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal by which the applicant asks the court to reconsider the payment she was ordered to make under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

On 24 April 2023 in the Crown Court at Cardiff, the applicant (then aged 57) changed her plea to guilty to two counts of engaging in commercial practice which was misleading in action and contained false information (Counts 3 and 5). She also pleaded guilty to two offences which had been sent under section 51(1) (b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 as related summary offences, namely, carrying on an activity without the authority of a section 13 licence. The offences related to her involvement with two daughters who were co-defendants in illegal puppy breeding.

On 10 July 2023 the applicant was sentenced to a total of 42 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. An order under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2005 was also made for 10 years.

On 30 September 2024 the applicant was ordered to pay a confiscation order of £60,000 under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, to be paid within 3 months or in default to serve 12 months' imprisonment. The confiscation order was made by agreement. The agreed benefit figure was £60,000 and it was common ground that the available amount far exceeded the benefit and so a confiscation order in the full sum should be made.

The applicant contends that the benefit figure should have been £27,000. She submits that £30,000 of the sum attributed as benefit to her was deposited into her daughter Kaylie's account (a co-defendant). She also states that the available amount is incorrect, being based on valuations for her properties that far exceed what she contends is their true value, and that to pay the confiscation order she would have to sell her family home in which her 18-year-old son and disabled daughter live, rendering them homeless.

Refusing leave, the single judge observed:

Having considered all the appellant's submissions including those submitted following the single judge's decision, we agree. The application to admit fresh evidence is wholly unarguable. In reality the applicant seeks to revive an argument that she sought to maintain prior to a hearing listed for 5 September 2024 to determine the benefit and available amount. At that stage she contended the total benefit was £27,981.61, relying on credits in her bank account which she contended were the only amounts directly attributable to illicit dog breeding. She seeks to rely on the same point before this court, contending that £30,000 was received by her daughter rather than her. However, the prosecution's evidence was that the benefit was £75,067.72, and rather than proceed with the listed contested hearing, the applicant, having considered that evidence with the benefit of legal advice, agreed the benefit figure of £60,000.

As to the available amount, it was set at £60,000 — the same as the benefit figure. At the POCA hearing it was agreed that given the applicant was the sole owner of properties in Wales, Gran Canaria and Valencia, none of which were subject to a mortgage, the available amount far exceeded the benefit. The applicant contends that her home in Wales has recently been valued at £160,000 rather than £240,000 and that the values of her property in Gran Canaria and Valencia were overstated. In doing so the applicant is seeking to revive a disagreement about the value of those properties, which before agreeing to the amount of the confiscation order she acknowledged was irrelevant as on any view the available amount was far higher than £60,000.

The grounds of appeal are not reasonably arguable, and accordingly we refuse leave to appeal.