Drug dealer ordered to pay back more than £25,000

editorial image

A drug dealer has been ordered to pay back over £25,000 of his criminal earnings.

The order was made after a successful confiscation order was brought against him by the Thames Valley Police Economic Crime Unit (ECU).

Martin Humphris, aged 47, from Ross Way, Bletchley, was ordered to pay back a total of £25,300 when he appeared at Aylesbury Crown Court on August 2.

Humphris has 10 weeks to pay the sum, or he will serve a default sentence and still have to repay the cash. He was also ordered to pay costs of £5,000 and has an additional five weeks to pay this sum.

Officers carried out a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act at the Ross Way address, where Humphris lived with his 50-year-old partner Carole Letchford, on June 15 last year.

On searching the property, 17 ounces of dried skunk cannabis and 16 cannabis plants with a hydroponics set up were discovered in a caravan. Humphris and Letchford were both arrested and subsequently charged with drugs offences.

Both appeared at Aylesbury Crown Court on March 23, where Humphris pleaded guilty to producing a class B drug and possessing a class B drug. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for 12 months on condition of 12 months unpaid work.

Letchford pleaded guilty to producing a class B drug and possessing a class B drug with intent. She was sentenced to three months imprisonment, suspended for two years.

After the convictions, the Asset Recovery Team (ART) in the ECU carried out an investigations into the couples finances and brought the confiscation proceedings against Humphris under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

The Asset Recovery Team’s primary goal is to deprive criminals from their ill-gotten gains and where possible reduce the availability of drugs in the community.

Grishma Valand, Financial Investigator from Milton Keynes ART, said: “This case is a good example of how we can use the Proceeds of Crime Act to maximise the amount of money we can confiscate from a defendant.

“The Act allowed us to make the assumption that the defendant had produced five crops of cannabis between 2009 and 2011 and this was accepted by the court. Consequently, a confiscation order was made which exceeded the value of the crop seized in June 2011.”