False Accounting in UK Law

In considering whether actions outside the Houses and committees fall within parliamentary proceedings because of their connection to them, it is necessary to consider the nature of that connection and whether, if such actions do not enjoy privilege, this is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament.

The reasoning of the judgments is often terse and difficult to follow. Mr. Nicholls was the first to concede that it was impossible to derive from these cases any coherent underlying principle by which to distinguish the exceptional case where the privilege is not available from the normal case where it is. The furthest one can go is to say that they indicate a willingness on the part of nineteenth century judges to override the privilege when to allow it would defeat the justice of the case.

I consider that the challenged evidence is relevant to the Common Issues trial for the reasons that I have explained, is therefore admissible, and ought not to be struck out. Whether this “generates adverse publicity” for the defendant is not a concern of the court, as long as the evidence is properly admissible under the CPR, which I have found it is. The court is not a marketing or PR department for any litigant, and the principle of open justice is an important one.

Whatever charges were brought against an individual appellant, and whatever pleas may ultimately have been accepted, the whole basis of each prosecution was that money was missing from the branch account: there was an actual shortfall, which had been caused by theft on the part of the SPM, or at best had been covered up by false accounting or fraud on the part of the SPM. If the Horizon data was not reliable, there was no basis for the prosecution.

Defendants were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced on the basis that the Horizon data must be correct, and cash must therefore be missing, when in fact there could be no confidence as to that foundation.

The following are some of the matters to which the Court will no doubt wish to pay regard in determining what the proper level of sentence should be: (i) the quality and degree of trust reposed in the offender including his rank; (ii) the period over which the fraud or the thefts have been perpetrated; (iii) the use to which the money or property dishonestly taken was put; (iv) the effect upon the victim; (v) the impact of the offences on the public and public confidence; (vi) the effect on fellow-employees or partners; (vii) the effect on the offender himself; (viii) his own history; (ix) those matters of matigation special to himself such as illness; being placed under great strain by excessive responsibility or the like; where, as sometimes happens, there has been a long delay, say over two years, between his being confronted with his dishonesty by his professional body or the police and the start of his trial finally, any help given by him to the police.

When a settlor creates a settlement he purports to divest himself of assets in favour of the trustee, and the trustee accepts them on the basis of the trusts of the settlement. I cannot understand on what basis a third party could claim, merely by reference to the unilateral intentions -of the settlor, that the settlement was a -sham and that the assets in fact remained the settlor's property. To set that sort of case up the donee must also be shown to be a party to the alleged sham.