Confiscation order made against former Marine who used MOD van to move drugs across the border

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] HCJ 1
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Tyre

Grant Broadfoot pled guilty to a charge of being involved in serious organised crime and using MOD vehicles to transport cannabis and money. Guilty pleas were also tendered by his father Ian Broadfoot and another co-accused, Stuart Bryant, to lesser charges relating to the same course of criminal conduct.

The application was heard by Lord Tyre, with Heaney, advocate depute, appearing for the Crown and N Shand for the accused.

Detained at handover

At the time of the offences the accused and Mr Bryant were serving Royal Marine Commandos based at Faslane. On Wednesday 3 June 2020, they transported drugs from England to Scotland in a van belonging to the MOD and were detained at an attempted handover with another van at an address in Mount Vernon, Glasgow. The police found around 10 kilos of cannabis in the MOD van and 20 kilos in the second van, as well as £27,730 in cash during a search of the accused’s home. A search of Ian Broadfoot’s home produced a cash counting machine, a vacuum sealer, more cash, and cannabis plants in a garage.

The police obtained further evidence against the accused and Stuart Bryant by successful infiltration of an encrypted communications platform called Encrochat, used by the accused from March to June 2020. During this time, he conducted a number of chats which demonstrated his involvement in serious and organised crime, including transportation of drugs and collection of money. In certain conversations he also appeared to offer to supply ammunition, to which he had access as a storeman at Faslane.

In terms of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Crown submitted that the accused had “obtained” all of the drugs seized, which had a sale value of £114,000. It was clear from the agreed narrative that he controlled the movement of the drugs, including the 20 kilos destined for Edinburgh, and the offence was properly categorised as a lifestyle offence. This was not analogous to a situation involving an individual participating under duress.

For the accused it was submitted that no sum should be added to the benefit figure in relation to the value of the drugs, as in the circumstances of this case it would not be proportionate to do so. According to the accused’s evidence he had not paid for the cannabis recovered from the vans and he had obviously not had an opportunity to realise its value. Alternatively, if that argument were to be rejected, he should be found to have obtained only the 10 kilos of cannabis which he was entitled to dispose of for his own profit.

Central role

In his decision, Lord Tyre said of the accused’s role in the offence: “On the basis of the agreed narrative, including the content of the Encrochat messages, there is no doubt that the accused was much more than a courier. He played a central role in a serious crime operation for the transportation of cannabis to Scotland, including use of MOD vehicles. The fact that he stood to gain no personal benefit from a portion of the particular load intercepted by the police is neither here nor there.”

He continued: “The accused’s proportionality argument is misconceived. Section 92(6) is not concerned with the assessment of benefit obtained, and there is therefore no statutory requirement to address proportionality in that context. Proportionality must be addressed by the court when deciding whether to require the accused to pay the amount which it has decided is the recoverable amount, which will not be more than the available amount.”

Assessing the overall benefit to the accused, Lord Tyre said: “In terms of [2002 Act] section 143(7), the benefit from criminal conduct is the value of the property obtained. The value of the 30 bags discovered in the vans is agreed to have been £3,800 per bag, i.e. £114,000 in total. At one stage it was argued that this figure should be reduced to reflect the discount which would be given for bulk sales. That argument cannot be sustained, because the accused’s evidence was that he intended to sell the kilo bags individually.”

He concluded: “The relevant value is the value on sale and not the purchase price, which on the basis of the agreed narrative was £3,800 per kilo bag. The value of the bag recovered from Ian Broadfoot’s house is also agreed as being £1,000. The total value of the benefit of the accused’s criminal conduct is therefore £177,500, being the agreed benefit of £62,500 plus £115,000.”

Lord Tyre therefore made an order assessing the value of the accused’s benefit from the criminal conduct at £177,500, and a confiscation order in the sum of £29,309.15.