Pearson, R (on the application of) v Greenwich Magistrates' Court

For the purposes of an offence based on a false statement or representation, the question is whether the defendant’s words or conduct, considered as a whole, conveyed an inaccurate account. An omission can constitute a false statement only where its effect, viewed in the context of the whole communication, makes the account inaccurate. A form must be read as a whole, including any instructions it gives. An omission complying with an express instruction is not, without more, a false representation. The prosecution must also prove the positive conduct alleged in the charge and cannot rely on unrelated inaccuracies which do not establish the charged representation.

Mr Pearson was convicted by Greenwich Magistrates’ Court of an offence under section 112(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The prosecution alleged that, in an application for Council Tax Benefit, he falsely represented that he owned only one property, although he also owned the property in which he lived.

The magistrates found that he had omitted the second address from several parts of the form and stated a case raising questions about whether an omission could amount to a false statement, whether the form identified where the information should be supplied, and whether the recipient’s knowledge was relevant. Mr Pearson also sought judicial review concerning the amendment of the information from section 111A to section 112. The judicial review application was withdrawn after the court indicated its conclusion on the appeal.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction, conditional discharge and magistrates’ order for costs were quashed or lapsed accordingly.
2. Under section 112(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, a false statement or representation is made where, on the occasion in question, the defendant’s words or conduct, or both, taken as a whole, convey an inaccurate account. Whether an omission has that effect depends on the overall effect of the communication.
3. The form had to be considered as a whole. Giving the address of the property for which benefit was sought did not represent that it was the only property owned. The magistrates had accepted that the address in another part of the form might have been entered by council staff, so the prosecution had not proved the required positive conduct by Mr Pearson.
4. The form expressly instructed applicants not to include the home where they lived. Omitting the residential address therefore complied with the instruction and was not a false statement. Including the other property address made clear that it was not Mr Pearson’s residence, leaving the council free to seek further information if required.
5. Any failure to provide full mortgage information could not establish the charge, because that part of the form did not represent that Mr Pearson owned only one property. The absence of a request for help or advice was likewise immaterial to whether he had made a false statement.
6. Question (a) was answered in those terms. Questions (b) and (c) did not require answers. The judicial review application was withdrawn, and an order for assessment of legal aid costs was made.

• Greenwich Magistrates’ Court: convicted Mr Pearson under section 112(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and imposed a conditional discharge and costs order.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by case stated, quashed the conviction and consequential orders, and recorded the withdrawal of the judicial review application.