Atkinson v R.

For false accounting under the Theft Act 1968, the central issue is ordinarily whether the defendant acted dishonestly. The required mental state is composite. It requires a deliberate false accounting act, knowledge that the statement is false, and the statutory purpose of gain or loss. It is not to be analysed by importing the homicide law of intention.

A direction referring to forms likely to contain false information is potentially confusing if isolated. It will not render convictions unsafe where the summing up as a whole makes clear that deliberate submission with the requisite knowledge is capable of dishonesty. A Ghosh direction is needed only where the defendant may have believed the conduct accorded with ordinary standards of honesty.

The appellant, a pharmacist, was convicted at Derby Crown Court on 15 counts of false accounting contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. The counts concerned prescription forms submitted for payment which allegedly contained false declarations about patients’ entitlement to exemption from prescription charges.

She maintained that any errors arose from carelessness, stress and the volume of forms processed, rather than dishonesty. She appealed against conviction on grounds concerning the judge’s directions on dishonesty and intent, the absence of a direction based on R v. Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053, an unadvanced factual possibility, and alleged inconsistency between convictions and an acquittal on one count.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s convictions were safe. Her renewed application for leave to appeal on the fourth ground was refused.

2. The court held that the mental element in section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 was a composite state of mind. The essential issue, once materially false prescription forms had been submitted, was whether the appellant had acted dishonestly. In this context dishonesty connoted deliberately and intentionally making a false accounting statement while knowing it to be false, with the required purpose of gain or loss. The homicide authorities on proof of a separate specific intent did not govern that inquiry.

3. The trial judge’s references to forms which were likely to contain false information were, taken alone, unhelpfully close to the boundary between dishonest conduct and carelessness. Standing alone, they might have endangered the safety of the convictions. The summing up had, however, to be read as a whole. It repeatedly required the jury to be sure that the appellant knew forms contained false information, or knew that her system would produce such forms, and deliberately submitted them. Those directions sufficiently identified conduct capable of amounting to dishonesty.

4. A direction in the form considered in R v. Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053 was unnecessary. Such a direction is required only where the defendant may have believed that the conduct accorded with ordinary standards of honesty. Carelessness, tiredness, stress, or a hope that errors would not result did not raise that issue. The jury had expressly been directed to acquit if the conduct might have been careless or caused by stress.

5. The suggested theory that false forms may have been submitted to recoup losses on other forms was neither party’s case and had no merit. The acquittal on count 18 was not logically inconsistent with the other convictions because that count rested on different facts. It did not impugn the safety of the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the renewed application for leave on the fourth ground.
• Crown Court at Derby The appellant was convicted of 15 counts of false accounting contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.