Regina v Lancaster: CACD 2 Mar 2010

Whether Ommission Significant on Benefits Claim

The defendant appealed against his conviction for false accounting. He had been claiming council tax benefit and housing benefit, but had failed to notify the council of a change in his circumstances.
Held: The appeal failed. The court considered that the phrase ‘omits a material particular’ in the section referred to an omisssion where the resulting document could mislead in a way which was significant, and ‘Whether the omission is significant will depend on the nature of the document and the context. The test is objective, although it would not be helpful to the jury to use that term. A less lawyerish way of expressing it is to say that it is for the jury to judge for themselves, on the particular facts of the case, whether they regard the omission as significant.’

Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Cox and Judge Barker, QC
[2010] EWCA Crim 370, [2010] WLR (D) 63, [2010] Crim LR 776, [2010] 3 All ER 402, [2010] 2 Cr App R 7, [2010] 1 WLR 2558, [2010] HLR 40
Bailii, Times, WLRD
Theft Act 1968 17
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Mallett CACD 1978
The defendant car dealer had made out and used a hire-purchase agreement form which falsely stated that the hirer had been a company director for a named company for several years. Relying on the information, a finance company financed the . .
CitedOsinuga v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 26-Nov-1997
False information which was provided in a Housing Benefit application form would be used in accounting and constitutes false accounting. . .
DistinguishedPassmore, Regina v CACD 18-Jun-2007
P was claiming housing and council tax benefit. He had been convicted of dishonestly failing to give prompt notification of ‘a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of his to any benefit or other payment or advantage under the relevant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Benefits

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.401976