Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council v Rankin [2006] EWHC 957 (Admin)

Case No CO/488/2006[2006] EWHC 957 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Wednesday, 5 th April 2006
Strand
London WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
Between
GATESHEAD METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILAppellant-v-
Between
ELIZABETH RANKINRespondent
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofSmith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR A. FINLAY (instructed by Solicitors to Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared for APPELLANT for THE RESPONDENT was not present and was NOT REPRESENTED
J U D G M E N T

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:

[1]This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Blaydon Magistrates' Court. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council had sought to prosecute Elizabeth Rankin in that court. The charge to which they subjected her read as follows:
"From 26 January 2004 to 22 July 2004 Elizabeth Rankin knowingly allowed her partner to fail to give prompt notification of a change of circumstances which affected her partner's entitlement to benefit under the relevant social security legislation to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, contrary to section 112(1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (as amended by the Social Security Fraud Act 2001)."
[2]It was submitted on behalf of Miss Rankin that that charge, which had been laid by way of information, was bad for duplicity on the ground that it specified two distinct benefits, namely, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in a single charge. It was that submission which found favour with the Magistrates and which the Council now seeks to challenge on this appeal.[3]It is well known that duplicity in a charge is a matter of form and not evidence (see Greenfield, 57 Cr.App.R. 849). It is apparent from the case stated that there was a rather anecdotal series of submissions made to the Magistrates on both sides, with undocumented references to other cases, both local and more national, as well as reference to some authorities.[4]The Magistrates concluded that the charge was bad for duplicity. They stated:
"We were of the opinion although Gateshead Council had used one application form for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit a separate decision was required of the Council in connection with each of the benefits. Although similar in parts the Council Tax Benefit rules are not identical to the Housing Benefit rules."
[5]That proposition was then further illustrated in the case stated. “The question for the opinion of the High Court is: Was the single information contrary to section 112(1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (as amended by the Social Security Fraud Act 2001) against Elizabeth Rankin of knowingly allowing her partner to fail to give prompt notification of a change in circumstances which affected his entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit bad for duplicity?"[6]Perhaps it will assist anyone reading this judgment in their understanding of the background if I refer to the factual background. Miss Rankin's partner, Mr Wallwork, had completed a single application form headed "Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit application form". He had completed it essentially on behalf of both himself and Miss Rankin.[7]The Council uses a single form for both such benefits, even though it is not necessarily the case that a person is entitled to both or neither. At the end of that application form there is a declaration, which includes a declaration of understanding that:
"I know I must let the Council know about any changes in my circumstances, which might affect my claim."
The form is dated 21 September 2003.[8]The allegation is that Mr Wallwork commenced employment in January 2004. It was Miss Rankin who was responsible for the family finances, and it is alleged that she led him to believe that she was paying the rent and that the couple were no longer receiving Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, that is to say that she had dealt with the cessation of those benefits, whereas, in truth, she had not, and benefits continued to be received under both headings until July 2004.[9]We of course say nothing of the correctness or otherwise of the allegation. The question is simply one of whether the charge was expressed in a duplicitous form. In my judgement, it was not.[10]What had occurred was a single declaration in a single document in circumstances where it seems to me that there was a permissible administrative procedure. If Miss Rankin had sought to alert Mr Wallwork of the need to give prompt notification of a change in circumstances then one supposes that she would have done so by a single communication, and, if he had reported any change of circumstances to the Council, one supposes that he would have done so by another single communication, be it by telephone, letter or visit.[11]In those circumstances, in my judgement, it is not particularly helpful to compare the present case with previous cases in which the court has considered whether shooting two deer needs to be charged as two offences rather than one, or whether the theft of a number of items can properly be included in one charge, even though the appropriations may not have been literally contemporaneous.[12]All cases turn on their own facts. The purpose of a charge is to inform an accused person and the court what it is that the prosecution are alleging, so as to leave no room for doubt in that regard. Against the factual background to this case and against the language in which the offence is expressed in the Statute, it seems to me that the charge in this case did communicate what needed to be communicated, and did so without falling into the trap of duplicity. For my part, I would allow the appeal and answer the question in the negative.

MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT: I agree, and have nothing to add.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: What do you want us to do by way of

[15]MR FINLAY: My Lord, the situation was that there were difficulties in securing the attendance of a relevant witness in this particular case. The Council's view is that in this particular case they do not seek to pursue this lady any further. The relevant witness is, of course, Mr Wallwork, her partner, and he was not surprisingly reluctant to attend to give evidence against his partner when the matter was heard last year. The situation is that the Council do not seek to pursue this lady any further.[16]As I have indicated, the reason the case is here is because they have a large volume of these cases at this particular court, and indeed throughout the Gateshead area. Given that the form that they use is a standard form, as your Lordship has referred to in court this morning, it was felt that clarity as to the appropriate charge would be helpful not only to this Council but also to other Councils who were consulted when this matter first appeared at the Magistrates' Court and who have taken an interest in this case.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: Has it been a persistent problem that has been raised before? Is that why the prosecutor became steadfast about it rather than simply amending?

[18]MR FINLAY: It may be. Perhaps I could just consult about that. I do not think that it was a persistent problem. I think it was just this particular day when it occurred. I think previously perhaps there had not been this particular problem.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: Yes. I am grateful. Thank you very much.

order

that we simply remit the matter to the Magistrates' Court for further consideration, the matter to take its course?