Key Points
- West London drill rapper Digga D, whose real name is Rhys Herbert and who grew up in Ladbroke Grove, has been ordered to pay back £200,000 of drug money.
- Lincoln Crown Court applied the Proceeds of Crime Act on Wednesday, September 21, fixing the confiscation amount at £201,039 alongside £2,000 in court costs, as reported by the BBC.
- Herbert was previously sentenced to three years and 11 months in prison early last year following his arrest near Lincoln on February 21, 2025, while livestreaming on Instagram.
- During a Newton hearing in December, prosecutors alleged Herbert was involved in supplying up to 60kg of cannabis, while Judge Simon Hirst stated he was satisfied the rapper possessed 50.65kg and profited from selling at least 45kg.
- Defence counsel James Scobie KC argued in court that the case represented Herbert’s first drug supply conviction and highlighted his legitimate career as an internationally recognised performer and writer.
Ladbroke Grove (West London Times) October 22, 2026 — West London drill rapper Rhys Herbert, known professionally as Digga D, has been ordered by Lincoln Crown Court to repay £201,039 in criminal proceeds, alongside £2,000 in court costs, following a confiscation hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act. The ruling follows his conviction for drug supply offences and the court’s findings regarding cannabis sales, highlighting the financial consequences of criminal activity alongside his existing prison sentence.
Why Was West London Rapper Digga D Ordered To Pay £200,000?
As reported by Rafi Mauro-Benady of My London, Lincoln Crown Court hit Rhys Herbert with the Proceeds of Crime Act, ordering him to pay £201,039 in recovered assets after determining that the money originated from the proceeds of crime. Additionally, the court ordered him to pay £2,000 in court costs, as noted in reports by the BBC.
The legal proceedings stem from Herbert’s previous arrest near Lincoln on February 21 of last year, during which he was livestreaming on Instagram. He was subsequently sentenced to three years and 11 months in prison. According to social media updates cited in coverage by Rafi Mauro-Benady of My London, Herbert was released from HMP Brixton on October 6 last year, though specific licence conditions were not disclosed.
What Did The Judge And Prosecution Say During The Hearing?
During a two-day trial of issue, known as a Newton hearing, in December, prosecution representatives detailed the scale of the operation. As reported by Rafi Mauro-Benady of My London, prosecutor Aaron Dinnes stated during the sentencing hearing that Herbert held six convictions encompassing 13 previous offences, which included possession of a blade and violent disorder.
During the recent confiscation hearing, Judge Simon Hirst addressed the defendant via video-link from HMP Wormwood Scrubs. Judge Simon Hirst stated that he was “satisfied” the rapper had been in possession of 50.65kg of cannabis and had successfully sold at least 45kg for profit.
As reported by Rafi Mauro-Benady of My London, Judge Simon Hirst stated to Herbert:
“I am satisfied you were involved in supplying at least 45kg. It is agreed you had a significant role on the basis you expected significant financial advantage. On occasions others were involved in the operation of returning and collecting cannabis. The level of the offending is so serious that there must be a sentence of imprisonment.”
What Was The Defence Argument Presented In Court?
During court proceedings, legal representatives for the defendant emphasised his career in the entertainment industry alongside his personal background. As reported by Rafi Mauro-Benady of My London, defence counsel James Scobie KC stated that: “This is absolutely a first offence in terms of drug supply.”
Elaborating on the nature of the operation, James Scobie KC stated that: “In respect of him as a dealer, this is not really a case of somebody who had a large number of people. It was a single occasion he directed one person to pick up some drugs, who happened to be a friend. He does not have a team, this is very much a one-man band.”
Furthermore, James Scobie KC highlighted Herbert’s professional contributions outside of criminal matters, stating: “The defendant has been away now since February of last year. There is a very much positive side, legitimate side, to this young man’s life in respect of his work which is that of a performer and a writer to some degree of international notoriety and following. It is very, very sad and disappointing that he has had at the very least a year of his productive working life behind bars. He’s not a danger to the public, he’s actually a contributor to the public.”
What Is The Background Of This Particular Development?
The implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) in this case follows the conclusion of criminal prosecution and sentencing processes regarding drug importation and supply offences. Under UK law, POCA confiscation orders are routinely pursued by prosecutors following convictions for offences involving financial gain, allowing the state to recover assets deemed to derive from criminal conduct. In this matter, judicial authorities conducted a Newton hearing to establish the exact quantity of cannabis handled and the financial benefit obtained by the defendant before issuing the final confiscation order of £201,039.
Explore more West London Crime News:
Body Found in Headstone Manor Park, Harrow 2026
Man Jailed for Public Exposure and Assault in Hounslow 2026
How Might This Development Affect Fans And The Drill Music Community?
This legal and financial ruling carries significant implications for followers of the UK drill music genre, industry stakeholders, and the artist’s fanbase. For fans and supporters, the enforcement of a substantial £200,000 confiscation order alongside existing custodial sentences underscores the intersection of high-profile entertainment careers and stringent criminal justice enforcement in the UK. Within the broader drill music community, high-profile legal outcomes involving prominent figures often spark ongoing public discourse regarding the scrutiny faced by urban artists, the economic realities of career transitions from inner-city backgrounds, and the systemic application of asset recovery legislation. For the audience and followers of Digga D, these developments highlight the legal ramifications surrounding past criminal conduct, potentially influencing how fans engage with his future artistic output and public profile upon his full return to the music industry.
