Lancaster, R. v

For false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, an omitted particular is material where its absence makes the accounting document liable to mislead in a significant way. The offence does not require the intended financial gain or loss to occur, nor does materiality depend on proof that a benefits authority paid an entitlement it would otherwise have withheld.

Materiality is assessed objectively in the context of the document. An unanswered or inaccurate question on an application form is not automatically material merely because the form requests the information. The jury must decide whether the omission matters to the document’s purpose and use.

The appellant was convicted at Reading Crown Court of two counts of false accounting concerning housing benefit and council tax benefit claim forms, and of two counts of dishonestly failing to notify changes of circumstances. He was acquitted of a further benefits charge.

He renewed applications for leave to challenge alleged omissions in the judge’s directions on good character evidence and the consequences of his wife’s acquittal. He also appealed, with leave, against the direction on the false-accounting counts. The central issue was the meaning of omitting a material particular under section 17(2) of the Theft Act 1968.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were safe. The renewed applications for leave on the first two grounds disclosed no arguable basis for finding the convictions unsafe. The judge was not required to give the additional directions now advanced, and they could not have affected the verdicts.

2. Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 concerns falsification of accounting documents with the specified dishonest intent. It does not require that gain or loss actually result. The appellant’s reliance on R v Passmore [2008] 1 Cr App R 165 was misplaced because that case concerned a different offence, under a different statutory scheme, directed to changes affecting benefit entitlement.

3. Reading section 17(1)(b) and section 17(2) together, a material omission is one which makes the document liable to mislead in a significant way. The court adopted the approach in R v Mallett (1978) 67 Cr App Rep 239: materiality concerns something that matters. The inquiry is objective, but the jury should decide from the document and its context whether the omission was significant.

4. An incomplete or incorrect answer to a question on an application form is not invariably material. The question may be trivial or unrelated to processing the application. On these facts, however, the appellant’s answers concerning work, anticipated income, business activity and access to business assets were materially misleading. His belief that business accounts need not be declared could bear on dishonesty, but not on whether the information supplied was misleading.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal dismissed; the appellant’s convictions were held safe.
• Reading Crown Court: The appellant was convicted on counts 1 to 4 and acquitted on count 5.