Chaytor, R. v

For dishonest expense claims, the loss is assessed by reference to the fraud actually perpetrated. A defendant cannot reduce that loss by showing that, had he acted honestly and within the applicable rules, he might have made different legitimate claims.

Calculated false claims supported by false documents are wholly fraudulent, rather than merely exaggerated claims. In sentencing, a grave breach of public trust and non-financial damage to confidence in democratic institutions may materially aggravate the offending. A guilty plea entered only after substantial proceedings have taken place does not require the maximum available credit.

The appellant, a former Member of Parliament, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Southwark to three counts of false accounting. He had submitted dishonest parliamentary expenses claims, including claims supported by false tenancy agreements and invoices. The false claims totalled nearly £23,000, of which about £18,350 was paid.

On 7 January 2011, Saunders J imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months, 12 months and 12 months’ imprisonment. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the total sentence of 18 months. He contended, among other matters, that the loss should be reduced because he might have been entitled to recover comparable sums through legitimate expense claims, and that he should have received greater credit for his guilty plea.

1. Appeal dismissed. Leave was granted because the appeal raised issues of public interest, but the total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was not excessive.

2. The principle in paragraph 21 of the Definitive Guideline, Sentencing for Fraud — Statutory Offences, concerning an offender who is honestly entitled to part of money obtained by fraud, did not reduce the loss here. The offending was not an exaggerated version of a valid claim. It consisted of deliberately prepared false claims, supported by false documents, for expenses never incurred. The loss to the public purse was therefore the loss caused by that actual dishonesty. It was immaterial that the appellant might, by reorganising his affairs and making truthful claims within the rules, have recovered some money legitimately.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to allow 25%, rather than one-third, credit for the guilty pleas. The pleas followed extensive litigation over parliamentary privilege and an unsuccessful abuse-of-process application. The appellant had not indicated earlier that he would admit the dishonesty if those issues were resolved.

4. The offences involved calculated dishonesty, false supporting documents, significant public loss and a grave breach of trust by an elected representative. The court also treated the substantial, non-monetary damage to public confidence in Parliament and the democratic system as an aggravating feature. The appellant’s previous good character, personal disgrace, repayment and other mitigation did not require a lower sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court dismissed the appeal against the 18-month total sentence.
• Crown Court at Southwark: The appellant pleaded guilty on 3 December 2010 to three counts of false accounting. On 7 January 2011, Saunders J imposed concurrent sentences totalling 18 months’ imprisonment.