R v Cruise (Samuel)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Marrinan |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NICC 5 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 24 April 2017 |
1
THE CROWN COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
SITTING IN ANTRIM
_________
Between
REGINA
Plaintiff:
-v-
SAMUEL CRUISE
Defendant:
________
MARRINAN J
[1] On 20 January 2009, the defendant, Samuel Cruise, having been convicted of
offences to which the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) applied, was
ordered to pay £49,966.16 on or before 20 July 2009 by way of a confiscation order
under section 156 of the 2002 Act and in default to serve 18 months' imprisonment
consecutive to any term of custody which he was liable to serve for the substantive
offences.
[2] Pursuant to section 157(5) of the 2002 Act, the court was satisfied that the
following matters were relevant in the determination by the court of the available
amount from which the confiscation order made by the court might be paid:
(a) Equity in property at 9 Meadowvale Park, Limavady, £139,392.
(b) Transfer from Ulster Bank, account number X, to an Ulster Bank account
number Y in the name of Jason Cruise on 31st of December 2007, £10,000; and
(c) Funds held in an Ulster Bank account, number X, £3,020.08 making a total of
£152,412.08.
The available amount owed was £152,412.08. The court assessed the value of the
defendant's benefit from his criminal conduct at £49,966.66 and the recoverable
amount was therefore that sum.
[3] The schedule above assumed that the entirety of the equity at that time in the
Neutral Citation No: [2017] NICC 5
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: 2017NICC5
Delivered: 24/04/2017
2
property was held to be available to the defendant in satisfaction of any order
imposed.
[4] At the time of making of the original order no representations were invited
from the other legal owner of this property, nor would a court at that time have been
required by the legislation to do so when making an order.
[5] The order made on 20 January 2009 was not discharged and default
proceedings were then commenced. Many proposals were made by the defendant
over a long period of time to discharge the order and extensions of time were duly
granted by the court for this purpose but these came to naught. Ultimately, on 15
July 2016 the defendant not having discharged the order, a warrant for committal in
prison for six months in default was issued. The defendant was arrested and
committed to Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry on 6 November 2016.
[6] Thereafter, the defendant having received further legal advice made
application to this court under section 173 of the said Act, i.e., to vary the
confiscation order made against him on 20 January 2009 on the basis that the
available amount was inadequate. In its review of the matter the court directed that
fresh affidavits be lodged and skeleton arguments submitted. The defendant was
released on bail pending the present application. On 20 December 2016 the court
directed further that an updated valuation report on the property be prepared by an
RICS registered valuer.
[7] The application came on for hearing on 30 March 2017. By that stage interest
on the sum ordered had accrued in the sum of £28,758.61, leaving a total sum owing
of £78,724.77.
Section 162(4) provides that the interest must be treated as part of the amount to be
paid under the confiscation order.
In his affidavit of 25 January 2017 the defendant swore that he was married to his
wife Janet in 1980 and that he had lived in the property at 9 Meadowvale Park,
Limavady, since 1998. He avers further that the property was bought in their joint
names with the assistance of a mortgage from the Ulster Bank, the current
redemption value of that mortgage being approximately £11,000. In her affidavit his
wife Janet supports these contentions and adds that she "understands that (the original
order) was made on the understanding that (she) as joint owner of the property consented to
its sale."
At paragraph 6 of her said affidavit she avers:
"I hereby state that I do not consent to the sale of the family
home which is my only residence and which has been adapted to
To continue reading
Request your trial