Nolan & Anor v R

Nolan & Anor v R

The court held that passive receipt of overpaid tax credits and failure to report the overpayments did not amount to being 'knowingly concerned in fraudulent activity' under section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002. The statute requires proof of behaviour calculated to achieve the obtaining of payments, not merely to benefit from what has already been achieved. Since the fraudulent manipulation had already occurred by the time the appellants became aware of the overpayments, their subsequent conduct did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The convictions were therefore not made out in law and were quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Tracey Nolan; Appellant: Alison Howard; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Tax Credits, Appeal, Dishonesty, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Fraud Tax Credits Appeal Dishonesty Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracey Nolan

Appellant

Alison Howard

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether passive receipt and failure to report overpayment of tax credits constitutes being 'knowingly concerned in fraudulent activity' under section 35 Tax Credits Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of the offence disclosed an offence under the statute

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that passive receipt of overpaid tax credits and failure to report the overpayments did not amount to being 'knowingly concerned in fraudulent activity' under section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002. The statute requires proof of behaviour calculated to achieve the obtaining of payments, not merely to benefit from what has already been achieved. Since the fraudulent manipulation had already occurred by the time the appellants became aware of the overpayments, their subsequent conduct did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The convictions were therefore not made out in law and were quashed.

Court Disposition

Convictions quashed

Orders

  • Convictions of both appellants quashed as not made out in law