The appellant pleaded guilty to six offences of furnishing false information, contrary to the Theft Act 1968. She was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under the 2002 Act, with a view to a confiscation order being considered. She had made claims for housing benefit in the amount of pounds 15,946 between July 2002 and August 2006. A confiscation order was made under the 2002 Act. It was argued that the straightforward reading of the transitional provisions meant that there was no power to make an order under the 2002 Act.
Latham LJ VP CACD
[2008] EWCA Crim 1308, [2008] Crim LR 813, [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 38
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Referred to – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Cited by:
Cited – McCool, Regina v SC 2-May-2018
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.341697
