Parry v Halton Magistrates' Court & Anor

Under section 111 A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the requirement to give prompt notification does not cease merely because notification has become late. Where no notification is ever given, promptness does not prevent criminal liability. A person may commit the offence after the subsection comes into force in respect of an earlier change of circumstances where the change continues to affect entitlement and the person continues to claim benefit. The relevant criminal conduct is the dishonest failure to notify during the period when section 111 A(1A) is in force.

Mr Raymond Parry appealed by case stated against his conviction by Halton Magistrates' Court. He had received incapacity benefit while working in paid employment between 22 August 2000 and 8 January 2001, but did not notify the Department of Work and Pensions. Section 111 A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, inserted by section 16 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, came into force on 18 October 2001. He was convicted of dishonestly failing to notify the change between 8 December 2001 and 5 November 2003. The issues were whether the obligation continued, whether promptness remained relevant where no notification was made, and whether applying the subsection involved retrospective criminal liability contrary to Article 7 ECHR.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court answered “yes” to each question stated by the magistrates.
2. The claimant conceded, correctly, that the word “prompt” did not mean that a person who gave no notification, or notified only after the time when notification should have been made, could not commit an offence.
3. When section 111 A(1A) came into force, the claimant came under a fresh obligation to give prompt notice under that provision. The earlier employment was plainly a change of circumstances affecting entitlement because he continued to claim and receive benefit on the basis that he had not worked.
4. The relevant conduct was the dishonest failure to notify during the period from 8 December 2001 to 5 November 2003. The earlier employment explained the change requiring notification but did not itself constitute the offence charged.
5. A notification made sufficiently soon after 18 October 2001 could have been prompt under section 111 A(1A). It would not have been self-incriminatory because it would not have supplied evidence of an offence under that subsection, and the predecessor provision, section 111 A(1C), had been repealed.
6. Accordingly, the conviction under section 111 A(1A) was lawful.

• Halton Magistrates' Court: convicted the claimant of dishonestly failing to give prompt notification of a change affecting his entitlement to benefit.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on an appeal by case stated, answered each question in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal.