Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council v Rankin

A charge is duplicitous only if, viewed in its factual and statutory context, it fails to communicate clearly what the prosecution alleges. The fact that conduct concerns two related benefits does not necessarily require two separate charges. The question is one of form, not evidence. The court should focus on whether the charge gives the accused and the court sufficient information to understand the allegation without doubt. Comparisons with cases involving multiple acts or items are of limited assistance because each case turns on its own facts.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council appealed by way of case stated from the decision of Blaydon Magistrates’ Court. The Council had charged Elizabeth Rankin under section 112(1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as amended by the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, with knowingly allowing her partner to fail to notify a change of circumstances affecting entitlement to both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

The magistrates held that the information was bad for duplicity because separate decisions and differing rules applied to the two benefits. The issue before the High Court was whether the single charge was duplicitous.

1. Appeal allowed. The question stated for the opinion of the High Court was answered in the negative. The charge was not bad for duplicity.
2. Duplicity is a matter of the form of the charge, rather than the evidence: 57 Cr App R 849. The central question is whether the charge, read against the factual background and the language of the statutory offence, informs the accused and the court what the prosecution alleges, leaving no room for doubt.
3. The use of a single application form for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, and the fact that entitlement to the benefits was separately determined under different rules, did not make the charge duplicitous. The allegation concerned a single declaration and a single failure to notify a change of circumstances. In the circumstances, notification could properly have been made by one communication.
4. Authorities concerning whether separate acts, such as shooting two deer or stealing several items, require separate charges were of limited assistance. Each case turns on its own facts and on the language of the relevant offence.
5. The Council indicated that it did not intend to pursue Rankin further because of difficulties securing a relevant witness. The judgment nevertheless resolved the charging issue because it had wider practical significance for similar benefit prosecutions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by way of case stated allowed. The decision of Blaydon Magistrates’ Court was challenged, and the High Court answered the stated question in the negative.