Webster, R. v

A change of circumstances for the offence under section 111A(1A) is determined by the statutory conditions of entitlement. It does not require proof that a claimant’s partner actually gave financial assistance.

Where unmarried partners live together as husband and wife, they are a couple for the purposes of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. A working partner’s status and resources may therefore affect entitlement to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The prosecution must nevertheless prove that the claimant knew the change affected entitlement and dishonestly failed promptly to notify it.

An allegation of living together as husband and wife uses the statutory language and is sufficiently precise. An additional allegation that the partner was able to provide financial support is surplus, though it may specify the alleged change.

The appellant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of three offences of dishonestly failing to notify changes of circumstances affecting entitlement to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, contrary to section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. She received concurrent suspended sentences of four months’ imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that she had lived with Stephen Aspinall as husband and wife while claiming benefits as a single parent. The indictment also alleged that he worked and was able to provide financial support. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that the Crown had to prove that he had actually provided financial assistance. She also challenged the adequacy of the route-to-verdict directions, relying on R v Zorlu [2009] EWCA Crim 589.

The central issue was whether actual financial assistance was an essential element of a relevant change of circumstances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The particulars alleged an offence known to law, and the judge’s directions accurately reflected the offences charged.

2. Section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 requires a change of circumstances affecting entitlement, knowledge that it affects entitlement, and a dishonest failure promptly to notify it. Whether entitlement is affected depends on the statutory criteria for the relevant benefit.

3. Under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, an unmarried man and woman living together as husband and wife are a couple. If one member of that couple is engaged in remunerative work, the other has no entitlement to income support under section 124(1)(c). The partner’s income and capital are treated as the claimant’s under section 136. The same treatment applies to housing benefit and council tax benefit.

4. The statutory scheme contains no requirement that the working partner must have made an actual financial contribution. The relevant change was the appellant’s living with Mr Aspinall as husband and wife, with the resulting statutory effect on entitlement. The allegation that he worked and was able to support her was not itself a criterion of entitlement and was strictly immaterial, although it gave greater particularity to the charge.

5. The court approved the distinction in R v Zorlu [2009] EWCA Crim 589 between the imprecise expression “living with” and the statutory concept of living together as husband and wife. It did not accept that Zorlu required proof of actual financial assistance.

6. There was evidence on which the jury could find that the appellant knew the change affected her entitlement and dishonestly failed to notify the authorities. Those issues were properly left to the jury.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: on 15 November 2012, the appellant was convicted of three offences under section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. On 4 January 2013, she received concurrent suspended sentences of four months’ imprisonment.