REGINA v Ayankoya

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, together with his wife and a third co-defendant, engaged in a conspiracy to defraud by hijacking the identities of 37 individuals to claim Working Family Tax Credits totaling £357,500 between September 1999 and April 2004. The appellant and his wife obtained some identities through their respective employments, while the third defendant exploited her position at a government department to facilitate claims.

All three defendants pleaded guilty in August 2006. The appellant and his wife were each sentenced to four years' imprisonment, and the third defendant to two years and six months. Subsequent confiscation proceedings were initiated under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, with the prosecution arguing for a realisable asset figure of approximately £94,000. The appellant contended he had fewer assets, citing ownership of a home, a re-mortgage releasing £20,000 equity, and sale of a vehicle for £2,500, denying any hidden assets.

On 25 and 26 January 2007, during confiscation hearings before His Honour Judge Robbins, issues arose concerning an adjournment request to obtain bank statements and the non-production of the appellant’s wife from custody. Despite objections from the appellant’s wife’s legal representative and the prosecution, an adjournment was not granted. Subsequently, the parties reached an agreed confiscation order for the appellant of £88,000, which he consented to. Similar orders were made against the co-defendants.

The appellant’s renewed applications to appeal against sentence and the confiscation order were initially refused. Over two years late, the appellant sought permission to appeal the confiscation order on grounds of inadequate legal representation and alleged intimidation, claiming he was misled about the possibility of renegotiating the agreement. The court granted leave to appeal and extended time, ordering statements from the appellant’s legal representatives.

Subsequent statements from the appellant’s counsel and solicitor clarified that the appellant was advised about the option to contest the hearing but chose to agree to the order, without any advice about renegotiation. Additional documents surfaced indicating the appellant was misinformed that the judge had ruled out any adjournment, when in fact no such ruling had been made.

Given the new material and agreement between the parties, the court considered whether this constituted exceptional circumstances warranting intervention in the agreed confiscation order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an agreed confiscation order can be set aside on the basis of erroneous advice or misinformation provided to the defendant during proceedings.
2. Whether the circumstances of this case constitute the "exceptional circumstances" required to intervene in an agreed confiscation order under the principles established in precedent cases.
3. The proper calculation of the appellant’s realisable assets and whether the agreed confiscation figure should be adjusted accordingly.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended he was prevented from giving evidence at a full confiscation hearing due to misinformation and inadequate legal advice.
• He asserted that his legal representatives misled him into believing the confiscation order agreement could be renegotiated later.
• The appellant claimed he was bullied and intimidated into consenting to the confiscation order without a proper hearing on disputed asset amounts.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution and legal representatives denied any bullying or intimidation.
• They maintained that the appellant was informed of his right to give evidence but chose not to do so.
• They argued that the agreement reached was binding absent exceptional circumstances and that the appellant’s claims did not meet this threshold.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the factual matrix surrounding the appellant’s consent to the confiscation order, particularly focusing on the procedural events of 26 January 2007. It found that the appellant was misinformed that the judge had ruled out any adjournment to obtain bank statements, when no such ruling had been made. This misinformation was potentially fundamental as it influenced the appellant’s decision to consent rather than contest the order.

Furthermore, the court assessed the newly available bank statements and found that the appellant’s concerns regarding the mortgage amount were partially substantiated, indicating some merit in his position. Although the agreed confiscation figure had included a generous deduction, the court determined that these combined factors amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying intervention.

Applying the binding principles from Hirani and Kirman, the court concluded that while agreements are generally final, the unique facts here warranted quashing the original confiscation order and substituting a revised figure reflecting the more accurate realisable assets. The revised figure was agreed by the parties and accounted for verified mortgage payments and council tax, while excluding disputed items.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed to the extent that the original confiscation order in the sum of £88,000 is quashed and replaced with a substituted order in the sum of £82,297.53.

The direct effect of this decision is a reduction in the appellant’s confiscation liability to reflect a more accurate assessment of his realisable assets. The court emphasized that such intervention in agreed confiscation orders remains exceptional and does not establish a broader precedent for routinely setting aside agreements absent compelling reasons. The ruling underscores the importance of accurate information and fair procedure in the consent process for confiscation orders.