Taffs v Chelmsford Crown Court

In a prosecution for failing promptly to notify a change affecting benefit entitlement, the prosecution must identify and prove the alleged delay. It is insufficient for a court to treat promptness as a general question of fact after the evidence has closed, where the prosecution case was that no notification had been given. The defendant must know the precise delay alleged to exceed what was reasonably practicable and must have a fair opportunity to address it. The prosecution bears the burden of proof on that issue. A conviction or appellate decision cannot be sustained on an alternative basis that was not properly alleged and ventilated.

The claimant was convicted at the magistrates’ court of failing promptly to notify the local authority of earnings from employment, contrary to section 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Her appeal to Chelmsford Crown Court was dismissed.

The prosecution case had been that the claimant’s further notification letters had not been sent or received. The Crown Court accepted that the letters had been sent, but nevertheless concluded that they were not prompt. The claimant sought judicial review, contending that this alternative basis had not been properly advanced or put to her. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had acted fairly and lawfully in deciding the appeal on that basis.

1. Judicial review granted. The order of the Chelmsford Crown Court was quashed, and an order allowing the claimant’s appeal from the magistrates’ court was substituted.
2. Section 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides that notification is prompt only if given as soon as reasonably practicable after the relevant change. Where the prosecution relies on lack of promptness, it must allege and prove the relevant delay. The prosecution must establish when the change occurred, when notification was given, and why the notification was not made as soon as reasonably practicable.
3. Although the charge in this case could have been more fully particularised, the decisive defect was that the prosecution case was presented on the basis that the further letters had not been sent or received. It did not put the claimant on notice that, even if the letters were sent, the prosecution alleged that they were late.
4. The Crown Court raised the issue during the hearing, but the issue was not sufficiently deployed or articulated. The claimant was not cross-examined on the reasons for the alleged delays and had no fair opportunity to give evidence or prepare an answer. It was insufficient to regard promptness merely as a matter of fact for the court.
5. The criminal burden and standard of proof applied. A court could not uphold the conviction on an alternative case that had not been properly alleged and ventilated. The Crown Court’s approach was therefore unfair and wrong.
6. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment for the purposes of the Legal Services Commission.

• Chelmsford Crown Court: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against conviction on 24 and 25 October 2012.
• High Court (Administrative Court): granted judicial review, quashed the Crown Court’s order and substituted an order allowing the appeal from the magistrates’ court.