Bennett v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Under section 116(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, proceedings may be begun within three months after sufficient evidence comes to the relevant authority’s knowledge or within 12 months of the offence, whichever period expires later. The court must give effect to those words. Where failure to notify is continuing, the offence may continue until notification or another terminating event. A prosecution brought within the statutory period is not thereby an abuse of process. A stay for delay requires serious prosecution failings and substantial unfair prejudice affecting the fairness of the trial.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against her convictions by North Surrey Justices for three offences under section 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The offences concerned failures promptly to notify changes affecting entitlement to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit after she began employment.

The requisition commencing proceedings was issued within 12 months of the dates on which the offences were treated as continuing. The Magistrates rejected challenges based on statutory limitation and abuse of process. The central issues were whether the proceedings were timely under section 116(2), and whether delay caused unfair prejudice requiring a stay.

1. Appeal dismissed. The requisition was issued within the statutory period and the prosecution was not an abuse of process.
2. Section 116(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 permits proceedings to be begun within three months from the date on which sufficient evidence comes to the relevant authority’s knowledge, or within 12 months from commission of the offence, whichever period last expires. There was no basis for disregarding the latter words. The provision recognises that benefit offending may be discovered only after the offence and gives the prosecution authority the applicable statutory period.
3. Eyeson v Milton Keynes Council [2005] EWHC 1160 (Admin) was distinguishable. It concerned proceedings begun after the 12-month period, so reliance had to be placed on the alternative three-month period. It did not support the claimant’s construction.
4. Consistently with Smith v North Somerset Council, [2007] EWHC 1767 (Admin), the alleged failures to notify were continuing offences. The first continued until 14 May 2009 and the second and third until 24 May 2009. Proceedings begun on 12 May 2010 were therefore in time.
5. A stay for delay is rarely granted. The threshold is high and requires serious prosecution failings together with unfair prejudice affecting the ability to receive a fair trial. Although the investigation had proceeded somewhat leisurely, the claimant could give evidence about the conversations she alleged and there was no objective evidence supporting her account. The passage of time had not materially prejudiced her defence. The approach was consistent with R v Sadler [2002] EWCA Crim 1722.
6. The Magistrates’ questions (a) and (b) were answered “Yes”. It was unnecessary to answer questions (c) and (d). The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, not to be enforced without leave of the court.

1. North Surrey Justices, Staines Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of three benefit offences, rejected her limitation and abuse-of-process arguments, and imposed a community order and costs.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and affirmed the Magistrates’ conclusions on statutory time limits and prejudice.