Criminal cases under SSAA

HNY all,

One of my colleagues has asked if there are any books or other resource material where he can find a list of cases involving benefit fraud under the SSAA. I have no idea but thought one of you oracles might know.

Cheers

The following are taken from some training notes I’ve written.  There are also various sentencing cases (R v Stewart is main one).

R v Zorlu [2009] EWCA Crim 589 fails to consider long established social security case law used to decide whether or not people living together.  Obiter point about need for evidence of instructions to report changes of circumstances (not assertions that these were issued). “Living with someone is a very imprecise concept…never to be used in the future [in Indictments]”.

R v Passmore [2007] EWCA Crim 2053 – a change of circumstances which does not affect benefit entitlement/amount cannot be an offence under S111A(1A) Social Security Administration Act 1992 [presumably also under s112]. See also London Borough of Croydon v Shanahan [2010] EWCA Crim 98 (client had notified the council about her earnings which were high enough to extinguish entitlement to HB/CTB, but had not notified subsequent awards of tax credits.  The latter changes made no difference because entitlement was already removed by the earnings).

R v Lancaster [2010] EWCA Crim 370.  R v Passmore is not relevant to offence of false accounting.

R v Mote [2007] EWCA Crim 3131; – the prosecutor misidentified when the failure to identify change of circumstances actually arises.  Note that s111A(1A) does not apply to offences before the date this offence was created (18th October 2001).

R v Laku [2008] EWCA Crim 1745 – where an initial application for benefit was fraudulent, subsequent failures to notify changes of circumstances are of no consequence, ergo no offence in respect of these.

R v Tilley [2009] EWCA Crim 1426.  Offences involving allowing someone to not report a change of circumstances means D must have been able to take some action (“positive act”) to cause the other to notify the benefit authorities.  Knowing about a breach and not taking action is not sufficient to create an offence.

Durham CC v Dickinson [2009] EWHC 2758 (Admin).  Burden lies with prosecution to prove to the criminal standard that there was a failure to notify a change of circumstances.  Magistrates accepted D’s evidence that he had posted a form notifying a change of circumstances and the council said it was not received: Not sufficient to convict.

Azam v Epping Forest DC [2009] EWHC 3177 (admin) certificate must be issued under s 116 Social Security Administration Act 1992 to found offences under s 112 or court must decide whether prosecution is within time limit.  Also guidance about abuse of process where prosecutor has manipulated or misused the process so the person is deprived of the time bar for s 112 offences.

Eyeson v Milton Keynes Council [2005] EWHC 1160 (Admin).  Time limits for s112 SSAA 1992 prosecutions.

King v Kerrier District Council [2006] EWHC 500 (Admin)].  Changes of circumstances offences:  The prosecution must prove to the criminal standard that D knew the change of circumstances would affect their entitlement.

Flintshire CC v Reynolds [2006] EWHC 195.  “Constructive knowledge [of a change of circumstances or contents of a claim form] is not enough to demonstrate that something has been done knowingly in the context of a criminal statute”  [eg s112 Social Security Administration Act 1992].

R v Parmer [2006] EWCA Crim 979.  Notional entitlement is relevant for sentencing .

DPP v Huskinson [1988] Crim LR 620.  No offence under Theft Act 1968 to “misspend” benefit payments rather than pass them over to (e.g.) the defendant’s landlord.

That is absolutely great, thank you Neil

BTW this is the third duplicate response so if you get all three you’ll understand why

Sorry, should have mentioned that R v Graham and Whatley [2004]  EWCA Crim 1997 is main case on sentencing

Links almost all of the crime cases and much more are on the Garden Court Chambers Website:

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/resource_details.cfm?iPublicationID=11 

I have just obtained some figures on sentencing for benefit fraud cases from DWP.  These show a good 20% reduction in immediate custodial sentences since the Court of Appeal decision in R v Parmer in March 2006 (which held that notional tax credits are relevant for sentencing - ie what would have been paid by way of tax credits in the alternative).  Hard to say the reduction is linked, but experience suggests it may be.

Thank you again