Flintshire County Council v Reynolds

Section 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 requires proof that the defendant knew the information supplied was false. Constructive knowledge, carelessness, negligence or failure to read a form is insufficient. A court may infer actual knowledge from the circumstances, including deliberate avoidance of an obvious inquiry, but it must distinguish that state of mind from merely failing to make reasonable inquiries. Signing a declaration of accuracy does not conclusively establish actual knowledge of the form’s contents. The offence is not one of strict liability and does not require proof of dishonesty.

This was a case stated appeal by Flintshire County Council against the acquittal of Mrs Anne Reynolds by magistrates at Mold. The respondent had countersigned a housing benefit claim form completed and signed as claimant by her husband. The form incorrectly stated that she was not employed, although she worked 13 hours a week. The magistrates found that she had signed without reading the form and had only constructive knowledge of its contents. The central issue was whether that finding was compatible with an offence under section 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to acquit the respondent because the prosecution had not proved that she knew the information in the form was false.
2. Section 112 requires proof of knowledge. It does not create a strict-liability offence. The prosecution is not required to prove dishonesty, unlike the offence under section 111, but it must prove the relevant knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The court adopted the distinction explained by Devlin J in Taylor’s Central Garages (Exeter) Limited v Roper, Local Government Review Reports 115, 445, at 449. Actual knowledge may be inferred from the nature of the act. Deliberately shutting one’s eyes to an obvious means of knowledge may also amount to actual knowledge in law. Mere failure to make inquiries which a reasonable person would make is constructive knowledge and is insufficient in a criminal statute requiring knowledge.
4. The respondent’s signature on the declaration did not compel a finding that she knew the form’s contents. The magistrates were entitled to find that she had not read the form and was careless or irresponsible, but lacked actual knowledge of the false information.
5. Lady Justice Smith observed obiter that the council’s difficulties were partly self-created. The form’s treatment of a partner’s signature was unclear, and its warning about legal consequences could have been more prominent. Mr Justice Newman agreed with the judgment and those observations.

• Magistrates’ Court, Mold: The respondent was acquitted of the offence under section 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The council’s case stated appeal was dismissed.