Tilley, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1426 (20 July 2009)

Tilley, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1426 (20 July 2009)

A defendant is not criminally liable under s.111A(1B) Social Security Administration Act 1992 for 'dishonestly allowing' a benefit recipient to fail to notify a change of circumstances where the recipient is equally aware of the change and there is no evidence of any act or omission by the defendant that could have prevented the failure. Mere inaction, without active involvement or a specific duty to act, is insufficient for criminal liability under the section.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Crim 1426
Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Christopher Tilley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of 'allows' in S.111 A(1 B) Social Security Administration Act 1992, Criminal Liability for Omission, Dishonesty in Benefit Fraud
Criminal Law Social Security Law Interpretation of 'allows' in S.111 A(1 B) Social Security Administration Act 1992 Criminal Liability for Omission Dishonesty in Benefit Fraud

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Christopher Tilley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does 'allows' in s.111A(1B) Social Security Administration Act 1992 require a positive act or is mere omission sufficient for criminal liability?
  2. 2 Is a third party criminally liable for dishonestly allowing a benefit recipient to fail to notify a change of circumstances when both are equally aware of the change?

Ratio Decidendi

A defendant is not criminally liable under s.111A(1B) Social Security Administration Act 1992 for 'dishonestly allowing' a benefit recipient to fail to notify a change of circumstances where the recipient is equally aware of the change and there is no evidence of any act or omission by the defendant that could have prevented the failure. Mere inaction, without active involvement or a specific duty to act, is insufficient for criminal liability under the section.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • terminating ruling stands
  • respondent acquitted under s.61(3) Criminal Justice Act 2003