Chung, R v

A conviction appeal will fail where the proposed grounds do not identify a material legal error or an unsafe verdict. A direction on dishonesty is not required where dishonesty is not a live issue. Fraud does not require proof that the defendant made an actual gain; an intention to make a gain is sufficient. A jury is entitled to reject an accused’s factual account, and a properly considered mid-trial discharge of a juror does not itself render the proceedings unfair.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal convictions on three counts of fraud following a jury trial before Recorder Sallon QC at Southwark Crown Court in July 2017.

Two counts concerned housing-benefit applications and the receipt of benefit in respect of two different homes. The third concerned an application for a second Blue Badge. The applicant denied completing or signing the relevant forms and maintained that she had informed the first authority of her move.

She challenged the absence of a dishonesty direction, asserted that no gain had been proved, relied on her entitlement to benefit, a Blue Badge and a Taxicard, and challenged the discharge of a juror. She also sought to add out-of-time factual grounds.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court agreed with the Single Judge’s reasons for refusing leave.
2. Dishonesty was not a live issue at trial. The real issue was whether the applicant had made the applications and received the benefits alleged. The absence of the suggested dishonesty direction therefore afforded no basis for an appeal.
3. Proof of an actual gain was not required. It was sufficient that the offence required an intention to make a gain. The applicant’s entitlement to housing benefit did not answer the allegation that she obtained benefit simultaneously in respect of two different homes.
4. Similarly, entitlement to one Blue Badge and a Taxicard did not answer the allegation concerning a second Blue Badge application. The jury was entitled to reject the applicant’s evidence that she had not made the relevant applications.
5. The juror’s discharge arose from an unfortunate event during trial. It was made on the applicant’s application after the court had heard the juror and both parties. The trial judge carefully considered the relevant matters and was entitled to continue the trial.
6. The additional grounds were out of time, lacked merit, and amounted to factual assertions for the jury. They did not justify leave to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed: [2018] EWCA Crim 917.
• Southwark Crown Court: the applicant was convicted by a jury of three counts of fraud in July 2017.