Andrewes, R. v (Rev1)

Case [2022] UKSC 24


Press Summary     Issues & Facts

Trinity Term

[2022] UKSC 24

On appeal from: [2020] EWCA Crim 1055

JUDGMENT

R v Andrewes (Respondent)

before

 

Lord Hodge, Deputy President

Lord Kitchin

Lord Hamblen

Lord Burrows

Lord Stephens

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

18 August 2022

 

Heard on 22 June 2022

Appellant

Martin Evans QC

Cameron Brown QC

(Instructed by CPS Appeals and Review Unit)

Respondent

Jonathan Ashley-Norman QC

Richard Reynolds

(Instructed by Harris Cuffaro & Nichols)

 

lord hodge and lord burrows (with whom Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens agree):

1. The question on this appeal

  1. This appeal raises an important issue on the confiscation regime laid down by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”). It concerns what is often referred to as “cv fraud” (“cv” being shorthand for “curriculum vitae”). Typically, as in this case, this occurs where a fraudster includes lies on his or her application form for a job (for example, by including qualifications or experience which he or she does not have) and, as a result, is appointed to the job. The fraudster performs the agreed services satisfactorily and is paid the agreed salary until the fraud is discovered. On a conviction for fraud, should there be a confiscation order stripping the fraudster of his or her earnings (net of tax and national insurance)? In particular, would such a confiscation order be disproportionate under the proviso in section 6(5) of POCA?
  2. The point of law certified by the Court of Appeal, which it is for this court to answer, is as follows:
  3. “Where a defendant obtains remuneration as a result of or in connection with an offence of fraud based upon the obtaining of employment by false representations or non-disclosure, in what circumstances (if any) will a confiscation order based on the wages earned be disproportionate within the terms of section 6(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, or contrary to Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights?”

    2. The factual background

  4. In September 2004 the post of Chief Executive Officer at St Margaret's Hospice, Taunton (a registered charity) was advertised. It was specified in the application pack that, as regards qualifications, a first degree was “essential” and an MBA “desirable”. In terms of experience, ten years of management experience, with three years in a senior position, were specified as “essential” and five years in a senior appointment as “desirable”.
  5. In his application form, dated 3 October 2004, Jon Andrewes claimed to have obtained a first degree from Bristol University in Social Policy and Politics (1976-1978) and an MPhil in Poverty and Social Justice from the same university. He claimed to have an MBA from Edinburgh University in Management Science (1982-1984) and to be in the course of studying for a PhD in Ethics and Management at Plymouth University (from 2003). Under the heading of Professional Qualifications, he claimed to have an Advanced Diploma in Management Accounting (CIMA). None of this was true.
  6. As regards his employment history…

Continue reading Andrewes, R. v (Rev1)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
Case
[2022] UKSC 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.