Mankowski, R. v

In sentencing for dishonestly failing to notify a change affecting income support, the court must assess the individual seriousness of the offending. Relevant matters include the amount and duration of the overpayment, whether a legitimate claim later became false, the use made of the money, previous character, and mitigation.

Where the overpayment is below £10,000, a custodial term need not be lengthy. The court should impose the shortest proper sentence after considering whether custody is necessary and whether a non-custodial disposal is sufficient. A suspended custodial sentence remains available where appropriate.

The appellant was convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of dishonestly failing to notify a change in circumstances affecting his entitlement to income support. His legitimate claim became false after he began newspaper work and did not declare earnings of about £66 per week. The resulting overpayment was £4,550 over approximately two years.

He received 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with a four-month curfew requirement. He appealed, with permission, against the length of the custodial term. The central issue was whether that term was excessive in light of the amount involved, the circumstances in which the claim became false, and his previous convictions.

1. Appeal allowed on sentence. The court held that the 12-month custodial term, although suspended, was excessive. It substituted a term of four months’ imprisonment.

2. The court applied the sentencing approach described in Stewart [1987] 9 Cr App R (S) 135. In benefit-overpayment cases, the sentencing court should consider whether custody is necessary, whether a community sentence can suffice, and, if imprisonment is required, the shortest proper term.

3. The relevant features include the amount overpaid and the period of offending; whether the claim was false from the outset or became false after a legitimate beginning; the use of the money; previous character; personal mitigation; and any repayment. For contested cases involving less than £10,000, the approach described in Stewart contemplated a short custodial term, with a suspended or partly suspended sentence potentially appropriate.

4. Here the sum was modest, the claim had begun legitimately, and the work undertaken was not lucrative. The appellant’s extensive previous offending remained relevant, but those circumstances did not justify a 12-month term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted four months’ imprisonment: [2008] EWCA Crim 1109.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 31 January 2008, convicted the appellant of dishonestly failing to notify a change affecting income-support entitlement. On 22 February 2008, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with a four-month curfew requirement.