Mr and Ms Beach have applied to the Supreme Court

Mr and Ms Beach’s property is a 32-acre farm in the Ward or Virginia Water, Surrey.

This case is related to allegations of breaches of enforcement notices issued by Runnymede Borough Council. The alleged breaches ranged from failing to remove building material, equipment, skips and vehicles all of which are sometimes necessary on a working farm. To the failure to remove a dilapidated portacabin, small concrete base and an extension which could have been easily delt with by a retrospective planning application.

From all counts in this case; the only means of 'income' Mr and Ms Beach could possibly have received is from the rental of caravans.

Mr and Ms Beach would like to the Supreme Court to consider the following:

  • Judges thus far have been wrong to dismiss evidence which clearly shows Mr and Ms Beach were entrapped into accepting payments from the prosecuting authority who then prosecuted Mr and Ms Beach for receiving the payments using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

In addition:

  • The manifestly excessive level of alleged illegal benefit was determined ‘solely’ by the prosecuting authority and are wholly disproportionate compared to the ‘true benefit’ received by Mr and Ms Beach. Judges thus far have been wrong to dismiss case precedents 'R v Sale' and 'R v Waya' where in these cases confiscation amounts were restricted to reflect the true benefit’ received and not gross benefits with no legitimate income included in the confiscation amount. 
  • The majority of the 'true benefit' received by Mr and Ms Beach was in fact the amount the prosecuting authority paid Mr and Ms Beach for the rental of caravans during the relevant period. 
  • The spreadsheets on following pages have been taken from the prosecuting authority’s own s16 report. The highlighted lines indicate payments made by the prosecuting authority to Mr and Ms Beach for caravan rental. The court will also note that payments around the highlighted lines have been included but have nothing to do with this case or are legitimate income. Legitimate income which for the last 35 years declared to HMRC by chartered accountants with no issues.
  • The prosecuting authority ambushed Mr and Ms Beach with a 299-page document containing many other allegations of illegal income just one working day before the original confiscation hearing. 
  • The following is the leading paragraph of judgment: Regina v Looseley

My Lords,

“Every court has an inherent power and duty to prevent abuse of its process. This is a fundamental principle of the rule of law. By recourse to this principle courts ensure that executive agents of the state do not misuse the coercive, law enforcement functions of the courts and thereby oppress citizens of the state. Entrapment, with which these two appeals are concerned, is an instance where such misuse may occur. It is simply not acceptable that the state through its agents should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. That would be entrapment. That would be a misuse of state power, and an abuse of the process of the courts. The unattractive consequences, frightening and sinister in extreme cases, which state conduct of this nature could have are obvious. The role of the courts is to stand between the state and its citizens and make sure this does not happen”.


  • State-created entrapment, as in this case, should have been considered to be an abuse of court process and ought to have resulted in a stay much earlier in these proceedings.


  • It could be argued that the prosecuting authority failed to declare that they were paying to use criminal property by renting caravans from Mr and Ms Beach. Runnymede Borough Council failed to record an authorised disclosure. Therefore Runnymede Borough Council themselves were breaching sections 329, 328 and 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
  • The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides for the confiscation of income from criminal activity only. There is no provision in the Act where it can be used as a punitive measure by increasing the level of confiscation as a punishment.

The Appellants request:

  • In the interests of justice and general public importance. Mr and Ms Beach, respectfully ask the court to conclude that the actions of the prosecuting authority by luring Mr and Ms Beach into taking caravan rental payments and then to prosecute Mr and Ms Beach for doing so to be an abuse of court process and respectfully ask for an indefinite stay of proceedings.

Dated: 11 September 2020

Housing Benefit Payments from Runnymede Borough Council

SHARE THIS PAGE using the icons below:

Mr and Mrs Beach are victims of a brutal bullying and victimisation campaign by local authority, Runnymede Borough Council (RBC).

RBC exaggerated the amount of alleged illegal income Mr and Mrs Beach received in order to cover up the fact that main source of illegal funding was from 'RBC'.

RBC used the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - a judicial process that cannot be used as a punitive measure - to 'punish' Mr and Mrs Beach for refusing to sell the farm to the council.

RBC for decades paid Mr and Mrs Beach for emergancy accommodation services and then RBC prosecuted Mr and Ms Beach for 'receiving' the payments?

RBC appointed a scrupleless Receiver to purposely transfer property title away from Mr and Ms Beach at a fraction of its value.


One of the directors at Abbey Forwarding suffered a mental breakdown, brought about "out of despair of what had happened" and the "overwhelming sense of injustice"

- Abbey Forwarding Story

- MP demands Louise Brittain must "never be appointed as liquidator"