Regina v Linegar

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Southwark on 22nd October 2008 to two counts of converting criminal property contrary to section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, three counts of possession of criminal property contrary to section 329 of the same Act, and one count of engaging in the provision of unlicensed personal credit agreements contrary to section 39(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. On 19th November 2008, the Appellant was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment for the Consumer Credit Act offence and to two years' imprisonment for each of the five Proceeds of Crime Act offences. The sentences for the latter were concurrent with each other but consecutive to the Consumer Credit Act sentence, resulting in a total sentence of three years and three months. The judge also directed that 146 days spent on remand be counted towards the total sentence.

The Consumer Credit Act offence related to the provision of personal credit agreements without a licence between 1st April 2003 and 19th August 2005. The Proceeds of Crime Act offences involved sums of money used to purchase a Mercedes car and a property, as well as cash recovered from various locations. The criminal conduct underlying these counts was identified as "drug trafficking and/or unlicensed money lending," though the basis of plea clarified it was solely unlicensed money lending.

The offences came to light after a crashed Mercedes car, linked to the Appellant, was found abandoned with cash and documents consistent with unlicensed money lending. The Appellant admitted in interview to possessing a large sum of cash but did not disclose its whereabouts. The sentencing judge described the Appellant's conduct as that of a "loan shark," noting the use of verbal threats and racist language to collect debts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences for the Proceeds of Crime Act offences should be concurrent with the Consumer Credit Act offence sentence or consecutive.
2. Whether the sentences for the Proceeds of Crime Act offences should be reduced to reflect their subordinate nature to the principal Consumer Credit Act offence.
3. The proper application of sentencing principles regarding offences under sections 327 and 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to an offence under section 39(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The principal offence is the provision of unlicensed personal credit agreements under section 39(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which carries a maximum sentence of two years.
• The Proceeds of Crime Act offences are subordinate to this principal offence because the criminal property involved represents the fruits of the unlicensed credit provision.
• Sentences for the Proceeds of Crime Act offences should be concurrent, not consecutive, with the principal offence sentence.
• The total sentence should not exceed the maximum for the principal offence and should be reduced to reflect the guilty plea, resulting in a total sentence no greater than 15 months.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court rejected the Appellant's argument that the Proceeds of Crime Act offences were subordinate to the Consumer Credit Act offence and thus should attract concurrent sentences no greater than the principal offence's maximum. It emphasized that the Appellant was charged solely with conducting unlicensed credit provision and not with any offences related to the manner of collection, such as threats or blackmail, which could not be considered in sentencing.

The court accepted the basis of plea that the criminal property was derived solely from unlicensed money lending, excluding drug trafficking. However, it held that the Proceeds of Crime Act offences are independent crimes: possession of criminal property (section 329) and conversion of criminal property (section 327) are offences in their own right, regardless of the antecedent offence.

The possession offence is designed to prevent criminals from using the proceeds of crime to further criminal activities, while the conversion offence involves laundering, which conceals criminal conduct and aids evasion of detection. These offences carry a maximum sentence of four years, reflecting their serious nature.

Accordingly, the court found the imposition of consecutive sentences for the Proceeds of Crime Act offences alongside the Consumer Credit Act offence justified and proportionate. The two-year sentences for the Proceeds of Crime Act offences were not excessive in light of the facts and the guilty pleas.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED. The court upheld the sentence imposed by the Crown Court, confirming that sentences for Proceeds of Crime Act offences can be consecutive to those for the principal offence of unlicensed credit provision. The decision reinforces the independence and seriousness of offences under sections 327 and 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, particularly in the context of money laundering and possession of criminal property. No new precedent was set; the ruling applies the established principles to the facts of this case.