Mote v R

Section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 requires proof of a relevant change of circumstances which the recipient dishonestly failed promptly to notify. It does not criminalise a failure to reveal facts which already existed when benefit was first claimed; that conduct falls, if at all, within the provisions concerning false statements or documents.

An indictment may be amended under section 5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915 where its description or scope is insufficient to meet the case advanced, provided that the amendment causes no injustice. Allegedly inconsistent verdicts render convictions unsafe only where the inconsistencies put their safety in doubt on the particular facts.

Mote v R concerned convictions for benefit-related false accounting, obtaining money transfers by deception, evasion of council tax liability by deception, and one count of dishonestly failing to notify a change of circumstances. The appellant was convicted at Portsmouth Crown Court on 21 counts and acquitted on four, receiving concurrent sentences of nine months’ imprisonment.

He challenged the convictions on grounds concerning European parliamentary privilege, the amendment of the indictment, allegedly inconsistent verdicts, and the validity of the count under section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The central issue on the final ground was whether the count and the jury direction identified a post-commencement change of circumstances which the appellant had failed to notify.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The conviction on count 8 was quashed. The appeals against conviction on every other count were dismissed.
2. European parliamentary privilege. Article 8 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities 1965 did not bar the criminal proceedings. The court agreed that the waiver by the European Parliament remained effective and that there was no reasonable likelihood that the pending Court of First Instance proceedings would produce a contrary result. The decision in R (IATA and others) v Department of Transport [2006] ECR 1-0000, concerning a preliminary reference, did not require the national court to await the separate challenge to the waiver. Gross J had therefore been entitled to lift the stay.
3. Abuse of process and amendment. Even if the trial had proceeded in disregard of a privilege serving the European Parliament, that would not amount to the deliberate executive flouting of the rule of law required for a stay for abuse of process under R v Horseferry Magistrates Court ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 and R v Mullen [1999] 2 Cr App R 143. The added counts remained within the parliamentary waiver. Section 5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915 permitted amendment where an indictment was insufficiently wide to encompass the prosecution case; the amendment cured that deficiency without jurisdictional error.
4. Verdicts. The appellant had to show inconsistencies capable of putting the guilty verdicts in doubt. The judge had correctly directed separate consideration of each count. The acquittals could rationally reflect features of the individual forms and did not undermine the safety of the remaining convictions.
5. Count 8. Section 111A(1A) requires a specified change of circumstances affecting entitlement. Apart from one matter, the particulars alleged pre-existing facts rather than changes. The jury were not directed to identify a relevant unnotified change. The count was defective and the conviction unsafe. Parry v Halton Magistrates’ Court and the Department of Work and Pensions [2005] EWHC (Admin) 1486 was in any event distinguishable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal allowed only as to count 8; that conviction was quashed. The remaining appeals against conviction were dismissed in [2007] EWCA Crim 3131.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: Before HH Judge Price, the appellant was convicted on 17 August 2007 of 21 benefit-fraud-related counts and acquitted on four. On 4 September 2007, he received nine months’ imprisonment on each count, concurrently.
• Crown Court proceedings: Aikens J had stayed proceedings on the asserted European parliamentary privilege. Gross J later lifted that stay. Judge Price permitted amendment of the indictment before trial.