Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office v Duffy

A compensation order may cover loss fairly attributable to the offence of conviction. The court is not confined to the amount expressly identified in a charge where the charge concerns conduct which, together with subsequent conduct, triggered payments over a period. Charges are not specimen charges merely because they identify separate dishonest acts. The court must distinguish such charges from individual charges for obtaining particular payments. Any compensation order remains subject to the statutory limit and the offender’s means and ability to pay.

The respondent pleaded guilty before the Weston-super-Mare Magistrates’ Court to four offences under section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002, involving false childcare-cost information used to obtain tax credits. The prosecution sought compensation of approximately £19,600, representing the total loss. The magistrates treated the charges as specimen charges and ordered compensation of £562, limited to the amounts stated in the charges. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated. The issues were whether the charges were specimen charges and whether compensation could reflect the total loss attributable to the admitted offences.

1. The appeal was allowed. The compensation order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the magistrates for reconsideration of the appropriate level of compensation.

2. The charges were not specimen charges. The respondent’s completion of the application form and later provision of false information together triggered tax-credit payments over a lengthy period. This was materially different from R v Crutchley and Tonks, where the charges concerned individual acts of obtaining particular payments. The principle in that case therefore did not apply.

3. For the purposes of section 130(1)(a) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the relevant question was whether the loss could fairly be said to result from the offences. Applying Rowlston v Kenny, all the tax-credit payments, and therefore all the prosecution’s losses, were fairly attributable to the first and third offences. Without those offences, none of the payments would have been made.

4. The finding that the magistrates had power in principle to order compensation for the total loss did not determine the amount. The magistrates had to consider the statutory limit, the respondent’s means and whether there was a reasonable prospect of payment within an appropriate period. Section 134 gave them a wide discretion, which they were directed to reconsider in light of the court’s ruling on principle.

5. The court considered it unnecessary to decide the alternative argument concerning a course of continuous conduct. It observed that the position concerning such offences might be affected by recent amendments to the Criminal Procedure Rules.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — On an appeal by way of case stated, the court allowed the prosecution’s appeal, quashed the magistrates’ compensation order and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
• Weston-super-Mare Magistrates’ Court — The respondent pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The court declined to order the claimed compensation of £19,600 and ordered compensation of £562.