Scottish Ministers V. Linda Doig+steven Doig+david Dodds Cameron
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Drummond Young |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] CSOH 176 |
| Date | 23 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | P260/04 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 23 November 2006 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2006] CSOH 176 | |
| P260/04 | OPINION OF LORD DRUMMOND YOUNG in the petition of THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS Petitioners; against LINDA DOIG, STEVEN DOIG AND DAVID DODDS CAMERON Respondents: ________________ |
Petitioners: Currie, QC, R Crawford; Solicitor to the Scottish Executive
First Respondent: Shead; Drummond Miller WS
Third Respondent: Di Rollo, QC, Gilbride; Balfour & Manson
23 November 2006
The parties' averments
[1] The petitioners are the enforcement authority for Scotland for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. They have presented a petition in which they seek a recovery order against the respondents in terms of Chapter 2 of Part 5 of that Act. The general scheme of Chapter 2 of Part 5 is that the petitioners as enforcement authority for Scotland are entitled to institute proceedings for a recovery order in the Court of Session against any person who is thought to hold recoverable property. Recoverable property is property obtained through unlawful conduct. Unlawful conduct is defined as including conduct in any part of United Kingdom which is unlawful under the criminal law of that part. In the present petition the allegation made against the respondents is that certain property held by them is recoverable property in the foregoing sense, and is accordingly recoverable by the petitioners. The petitioners' averments in support of that allegation were, however, the subject of detailed criticism by counsel for the third respondent; in particular he argued that the facts averred by the petitioners did not justify the inference that the property in question had been obtained through unlawful conduct. It is accordingly necessary to set out the petitioner's averments in some detail. Those averments are as follows.
[2] The petitioners aver that the following unlawful conduct has occurred. The third respondent has been, they say, concerned in the supplying of controlled drugs since at least 1997. He is said to have an extensive criminal history including numerous convictions for theft by housebreaking dating from 1964 to 1972. On 5 February 1997, following a guilty plea, he was convicted of a charge of being concerned in the supplying of controlled drugs under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and sentenced to six months imprisonment. At the same time he was admonished in respect of a conviction under section 5(2) of the same Act, relating to possession of controlled drugs. It is further averred that on 16 August 2002 the third respondent was arrested by Tayside Police in Dundee for possessing 2 kg of amphetamine. The drugs, it is said, were found in a Land Rover Discovery vehicle which the third respondent was driving. It is averred that the third respondent had placed the drugs in that vehicle, and that possession of such a quantity of drugs indicated involvement in supply. The third respondent was charged with an offence under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but proceedings in the High Court of Justiciary were deserted on 22 October 2003. That is said to have occurred because certain evidence was ruled to be inadmissible in the criminal proceedings.
[3] The petitioners further aver that the first respondent, who is the wife of the third respondent, assisted her husband in concealing the financial proceeds of the unlawful conduct previously specified. It is averred that the second respondent, the first respondent's son, has also assisted the third respondent in concealing the financial proceeds of unlawful conduct; he was not represented in the present proceedings. Details of property held by the first and third respondents are then given; these are as follows. The first respondent opened a Halifax instant saver account on 3 February 1997 with a £5,000 deposit. Regular lump sum cash payments have made into that account; no such payments were made during the period in 1997 when the third respondent was in prison. The majority of the lodgments were made by the first respondent. The total lodged in the account was £62,372.44, and the balance on the account stood at £29,000 in June 2002. The current balance is £5,460. Following the arrest of the third respondent on 16 August 2002, on 19 August, the first banking day thereafter, £25,400 was transferred from the Halifax instant saver account to a Halifax Cardcash account held by the second respondent. The second respondent made a further cash deposit of £7,000 into the Cardcash account on 31 August 2002. The current balance on that account, it is averred, is at least £32,000. The first respondent opened a Halifax bonus bond on 16 September 1998 with a single deposit of £5,000 from the Halifax instant saver account referred to above. The third respondent opened a gold deposit account with the Royal Bank of Scotland on 24 January 2001 with a £2,000 cash deposit. It is averred that regular lump sum cash payments have been made into this account, the majority of such lodgments being made by the first respondent. The total lodged in this account is said to be £34,316.64, and the current balance is said to be £115.83. The first respondent is said to have opened a gold deposit account with the Royal Bank of Scotland on 11 June 1996 with a transfer of £8,831 from another account with the Royal Bank. Further round sum deposits were made by the first respondent into this account; those totalled £3,526. The current balance of that account is £507.13. It is averred that the round sum lodgments in the various accounts were made in cash, consisting of coins and mixed denomination notes. In addition, two Britannic Assurance with profits endowment policies were taken out on the life of the third respondent by the first respondent, who was the beneficiary of the policies, in February and April 1999 respectively. The premium payable on each of those policies was £3 per week.
[4] The petitioners then make averments about the declared income of the first and third respondents. Those averments are detailed, and are broken down by financial or calendar years, but for present purposes it is sufficient to provide a summary. In her applications for the policies with Britannic Assurance, the first respondent stated that her joint income with the third respondent was £524 per month from benefits in one case and £362 per month from benefits in the other. As income, the first respondent received job seekers' allowance and invalidity benefits totalling £6,415.20 during the three years ended 5 April 1997, 5 April 1998 and 5 April 1999. During the three years ended 5 April 2001, 5 April 2002 and 5 April 2003 she received a total of £4,207.95 by way of disability living allowance and income support. The petitioners further aver that between 2001 and 2003 the first respondent visited a specified casino in Dundee on 311 occasions, placed £1,080 on gaming tables and received net winnings of £3,870. The first respondent further spent, it is said, approximately £160 per month on bingo at the casino. During the year 2003 she received income of £4,550 from the sale of dogs. It is averred that the first respondent had no other legitimate income over the period from 1995 to 2002, and that there were no Inland Revenue records for her over that period. During that period a total of £122,959.49 was deposited into three bank accounts in her name. It is averred that she gave no satisfactory explanation of the source of her income. Further property is averred to have been acquired by the first respondent. In May 2001, it is said, she purchased a house at 8 Ballantrae Place, Dundee, from the local authority at a price of £15,510 in cash. She further acquired three motor vehicles during 2001 and 2002, two of which she still has. In August 2002 she purchased, it is it is averred, a plasma screen television and digital box for £4,059.99. She also acquired a ring that was believed to contain diamonds.
[5] The income of the third respondent during the corresponding period is averred to be as follows. During the years ended 5 April 1997 and 5 April 1998 he received a total of £4,072.20 by way of income support. He received no benefits during the three financial years 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. During the years ended 5 April 2001 and 5 April 2002 he received a total of £2,219.29 by way of job seekers' allowance or income support. It is averred that he had no other no legitimate income during the period from July 1995 to August 2002. There were no Inland Revenue records for him over that period. A total of £62,430.05 was deposited into two bank accounts in his name during the same period. Lodgments into these accounts were frequently in the form of round cash sums exceeding £1,000. When the third respondent was arrested on 16 August 2002 he was in possession of £1,142.30 in cash. At police interview he accounted for his possession of that cash by stating that it was the proceeds of safebreaking. He subsequently maintained that he had obtained income from the sale of cars and jewellery, but no records or accounts of such sales are available. In 1998 the third respondent acquired a Peugeot car on hire purchase for a sum in excess of £12,000. During 2001, 2002 and 2002 he placed bets totalling £9,070, losing all but £1,100 of that amount.
[6] The petitioners further aver that the acquisition of the property referred to above could not be attributed to any legitimate income, and that the first and third respondents' lifestyle indicated that they were living well above their legitimate means. Certain further averments are made in relation to the earnings and assets of the second respondent; it is unnecessary, however, to rehearse these because he was not represented and no submissions were made in relation to the averments concerning property in his name.
[7] On the basis of the foregoing averments, the petitioners contend that the property specified in Part II of the Schedule to the petition is (i) property obtained...
To continue reading
Request your trial