King v Kerrier District Council

For an offence under section 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the prosecution must prove every statutory ingredient to the criminal standard. It must establish that a change of circumstances actually affected the defendant’s entitlement to benefit and that the defendant knew that it did so. Proof that the change could have affected entitlement is insufficient. A separate regulatory duty to notify possible changes, such as that under the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, is not itself a penal obligation and cannot replace the statutory elements of the offence.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the Truro Magistrates’ Court, which convicted the appellant of two offences under section 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The offences concerned alleged failures to notify changes affecting entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit.

The magistrates found that the absence of information from the appellant could have affected the amount of benefit paid. The central issue was whether that finding established, to the criminal standard, that a change of circumstances had actually affected the appellant’s entitlement.

1. The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed.
2. Under section 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, each ingredient in paragraphs (a) to (d) had to be proved to the criminal standard. The prosecution therefore had to prove an actual change of circumstances affecting a relevant entitlement, the defendant’s knowledge that the change affected entitlement, and a failure to give prompt notification in the prescribed manner to the prescribed person.
3. The magistrates’ finding that the missing information could have affected the amount of benefit did not establish that the change had affected entitlement. Those words were material and showed that the magistrates were not sure of an essential element of the prosecution case.
4. Regulation 75 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 imposed a separate duty to notify a change which a person might reasonably be expected to know might affect the amount or receipt of housing benefit. That duty was relevant to possible benefit recovery, but it was not part of the penal regime under section 112(1A) and could not support a criminal conviction in place of the statutory requirement.
5. Lord Justice Auld agreed with Mr Justice Newman’s judgment. An assessment was to be made under the legal aid provisions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal by way of case stated, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.
• Truro Magistrates’ Court: On 11 March 2005, convicted the appellant of two offences under section 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.