R v Andrewes and Proportionality Under POCA
R v Andrewes [2020] EWCA Crim 1055: When Is a Confiscation Order Disproportionate?
The Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Andrewes [2020] EWCA Crim 1055 is now one of the leading authorities on proportionality in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”).
The case is particularly important in situations involving:
• CV fraud
• employment obtained by deception
• false qualifications
• public sector appointment fraud
• confiscation proceedings following fraud offences
Most importantly, Andrewes established that even where a defendant has technically obtained a “benefit” through criminal conduct, a confiscation order may still be disproportionate if the individual provided full value through lawful work actually performed.
That principle has had significant consequences for how courts now approach confiscation in fraud cases.
The Facts of the Case
Jon Andrewes secured senior positions within the charitable and NHS sectors after making dishonest representations about his qualifications and employment history.
Among other false claims, he stated that he held:
• a degree from Bristol University
• an MBA from Edinburgh University
• a PhD from Plymouth University
• extensive senior executive experience
None of those claims were true.
Using those false representations, Andrewes obtained highly paid positions including:
• Chief Executive of St Margaret’s Hospice
• Non Executive Director at Torbay NHS Care Trust
• Chair of the Royal Cornwall NHS Hospital Trust
Over time, he received more than £643,000 in net remuneration from those positions.
He later pleaded guilty to offences involving deception and fraud.
The Confiscation Proceedings
Following conviction, confiscation proceedings were brought under POCA.
The prosecution argued that the entirety of Andrewes’ earnings represented criminal benefit because he would never have obtained the positions without the fraudulent representations.
The Crown Court agreed.
Although the available amount was significantly lower, the Recorder concluded that Andrewes had benefited in the sum of approximately £643,000 and made a confiscation order of around £96,000.
Andrewes appealed.
The Central Legal Question
The appeal focused on a critical issue:
Can it be proportionate to confiscate earnings obtained through fraudulent employment applications where the defendant nevertheless competently performed the work?
That question went directly to section 6(5) POCA and the concept of proportionality introduced following the Supreme Court’s decision in Waya.
The Court Confirmed There Was “Benefit”
Importantly, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Andrewes had not obtained a benefit at all.
The court held that the dishonest representations clearly caused him to obtain the positions and the associated remuneration.
The salaries were therefore obtained:
“as a result of or in connection with” the criminal conduct.
This part of the judgment is important because it demonstrates that:
• lawful work does not erase criminal benefit
• causation can still be established
• confiscation arguments do not end simply because the work was genuinely performed
However, that was only the first stage of the analysis.
The Real Issue Was Proportionality
The Court emphasised that confiscation proceedings are not designed to punish offenders.
Punishment is dealt with through sentencing.
Instead, the purpose of POCA is to deprive criminals of the proceeds of crime.
That distinction became central to the outcome.
The Court found that Andrewes had competently and lawfully performed the roles for many years. There was no evidence that the hospice or NHS trusts failed to receive value from his work.
In fact, the evidence suggested he had performed well in the positions.
The Court therefore concluded that confiscating his earnings would effectively amount to a second punishment rather than genuine recovery of criminal proceeds.
The Key Precedent Established by Andrewes
The most important principle established by Andrewes is this:
A confiscation order may be disproportionate where a defendant obtained employment dishonestly but nevertheless provided full value through lawful and competent performance of the role.
The Court treated Andrewes as having effectively provided “restoration” through the services he delivered during his employment.
That was the decisive factor.
The Court ultimately quashed the confiscation order entirely.
Why the Decision Matters
The judgment fundamentally changed how courts analyse confiscation in employment deception cases.
Before Andrewes, prosecutors often relied heavily on cases such as Paulet, where courts upheld confiscation of wages earned through unlawful employment.
However, Andrewes created an important distinction.
The Court differentiated between:
1. Someone Who Had No Legal Right to Perform the Work
For example:
• illegal workers without permission to work
• unqualified individuals carrying out legally restricted professions
and
2. Someone Who Was Legally Capable of Doing the Work but Lied to Obtain It
That distinction is critical.
Andrewes was legally capable of performing the roles. The issue was the dishonest route by which he obtained them.
The Court held that this made proportionality analysis fundamentally different.
A Warning to Prosecutors
One of the most notable parts of the judgment was the Court’s warning regarding confiscation proceedings in CV fraud cases.
The Court stated that prosecutors should think:
“long and hard” before pursuing confiscation proceedings in employment deception cases.
That observation is likely to continue influencing both prosecutors and defence practitioners in future POCA litigation.
Practical Implications for POCA Cases
The decision in Andrewes provides significant authority for defendants facing confiscation proceedings involving:
• CV fraud
• exaggerated qualifications
• regulatory non disclosure
• appointment fraud
• dishonest employment applications
For defence teams, the case reinforces the importance of focusing not only on “benefit” but also on proportionality under section 6(5) POCA.
The key question is no longer simply:
“Did the defendant obtain money following criminal conduct?”
The real question is:
“Would confiscation genuinely remove criminal proceeds, or would it simply impose an additional financial punishment?”
That is now one of the defining principles in proportionality arguments under POCA.
Final Thoughts
R v Andrewes remains one of the most significant modern confiscation authorities because it clarifies the limits of POCA recovery.
The case confirms that courts must look beyond simplistic calculations of salary or turnover and instead examine whether confiscation truly serves the statutory purpose of removing criminal benefit.
Where a defendant has already provided full value through lawful work, confiscation may cross the line from recovery into punishment.
And once that line is crossed, the order may become disproportionate.
