Laku, R v

Where a claimant had no original entitlement to benefit because undisclosed capital exceeded the prescribed limit, later documentation cannot amount to a relevant change of circumstances for the purposes of Social Security Administration Act 1992, section 111A(1A).

The safety of convictions is assessed in the context of the trial as a whole. The absence of a direction about limited "no comment" answers did not render convictions unsafe where the evidence was overwhelming and the defendant’s account was fully tested. A judge may make proper adverse comments on evidence if the jury is clearly directed that it must decide the inferences to draw.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook of three counts of making a false representation, contrary to section 111A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and three counts of failing to declare a change of circumstances under section 111A(1A). The allegations concerned his failure to disclose bank accounts and bonds containing more than £90,000.

He appealed the benefit-related convictions. The Crown accepted that the convictions on the change-of-circumstances counts could not stand under Mote. The remaining grounds alleged that the judge should have directed the jury about several limited "no comment" answers in interview and that adverse judicial comments on defence documents made the summing-up unfair.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The convictions on counts 4, 5 and 6 were quashed. The court applied Mote: where there was no original entitlement because capital exceeded the prescribed limit, subsequent documentation could not create a relevant change of circumstances capable of supporting counts under section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
2. The appeal against counts 1, 2 and 3 was dismissed. Although the judge gave no direction about the appellant’s answers that he would make no further comment “at present”, the proper question was whether that omission rendered the verdicts unsafe. It did not. The appellant gave evidence, his explanation was fully available for the jury’s evaluation, and the evidence against him was overwhelming.
3. The court accepted that a direction concerning those answers might have been preferable. It also accepted that drawing attention to them through a direction could have disadvantaged the appellant. On the facts, there was no reason to conclude that the absence of a direction affected the safety of the verdicts.
4. The judge’s adverse comments on documents produced by the appellant were available comments. They did not make the trial unfair because the judge gave the standard direction that it was for the jury to determine the inferences to draw. The comments were proper and could not have rendered the remaining verdicts unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court allowed the appeal against counts 4–6 and quashed those convictions. It dismissed the appeal against counts 1–3: [2008] EWCA Crim 1745.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 14 December 2007, the appellant was convicted of three false-representation counts and three change-of-circumstances counts under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. On 23 January 2008, he received concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment on those counts.