Nyonyintono, R. v

For liability as an aider and abettor of fraud by false representation, the prosecution must prove that the principal committed the dishonest fraud, that the secondary party knew of the principal’s dishonesty, assisted the fraud, and intended that assistance.

Where those elements are clearly directed, an additional direction on dishonesty which imposes a further requirement favourable to the defendant does not render a conviction unsafe. The fact that a defendant gave some care does not preclude fraud if false claims were nevertheless used to obtain payment.

Winifred Nyonyintono was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of aiding and abetting fraud by false representation, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. The alleged fraud involved false care-payment claims submitted to the Royal Borough of Greenwich by her uncle, Stephen Ssemanda.

The prosecution relied on false timesheets, payments into the applicant’s account, onward transfers, and evidence that her grandmother was abroad during claimed periods. The applicant said that she had provided care, trusted her uncle’s explanation for claims based on previously unpaid hours, and did not know that he was acting dishonestly.

Following the single judge’s refusal, she renewed her application for leave to appeal. The central issues were the adequacy of the jury’s dishonesty directions and whether there was a case to answer.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The judge correctly directed the jury that conviction required proof that Ssemanda had dishonestly made false representations to obtain a gain, that the applicant knew he was dishonestly lying to the local authority, that she assisted him, and that she intended to assist him.

2. Applying the principle stated in Jogee, [2016] UKSC 8, the applicant had to intend to assist the fraud because the principal offence required a particular intent. The four elements identified by the judge were therefore clear and appropriate for this charge.

3. The court did not need to resolve the then-pending question whether R v Ghosh, [1982] QB 1053, or Ivey v Genting Casinos, [2017] UKSC 67, governed criminal dishonesty directions. The modified Ghosh direction was unnecessary, but it added a matter of which the jury had to be sure before convicting. It therefore did not weaken the applicant’s case or make conviction inevitable.

4. The underlying fraud was plainly dishonest. The real issue was whether the applicant knowingly joined it. Her claim to have provided some care could not itself defeat the allegation, because fraud could be perpetrated whether or not some assistance had been provided.

5. The differing verdicts for co-accused were not illogical because their cases differed. There was also a strong evidential case against the applicant, including inaccurate claims for periods when care could not have been given, payments into her account, and transfers of money to Ssemanda. The judge was entitled to reject the submission of no case to answer.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Following refusal by the single judge, the applicant renewed her application for leave to appeal against conviction. The court refused the application.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: On 29 March 2019, before Judge Evans QC and a jury, the applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting fraud by false representation. On 14 November 2019 she received a 12-month community order.