Court of Appeal
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018318790805 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Court of Appeal
Theft: Appropriation through submitting
false claims? Darroux vR[2018] EWCA
Crim 1009
D worked for a housing association where she was employed as a manager of the charity. Her respon-
sibilities included the general running of a particular residential care home and she would oversee and
authorise all care home staff salaries, holiday and overtime payments, including her own. Once pay-
ments had been approved, they would be faxed over each month to a separate company named PCS
whose role it was to process the payments. An agreement was in place where D was entitled to claim
additional payments in the event that she either did overtime or covered for other staff members. She was
also entitled to claim payment in lieu of untaken holiday. Between 2002 and 2011, an arrangement was
in place where D’s claims would be approved separately by the charity’s chairman of the Board of
Trusts. However, when a new chair was appointed that year, this process lapsed and the majority of D’s
claims went unchecked.
D was dismissed from her role in 2014 and a res ultant Care Quality Commission inv estigation
discovered various administrative shortcomings at the care home and a financial audit was carried out
where financial irregularities surrounding D’s claims for additional payments were discovered. It was
alleged that D had falsely claimed overtime, on-call claims and holiday payments for the period between
January 2011 and February 2014 totalling GBP£49,465.
D was charged with nine counts of theft. The indictments (covering each monthly claim) were all
similar to count 1 which was worded in the following manner:
Statement of Offence
THEFT, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 1968
Particulars of Offence
PAMELA DARROUX between 1st day of January 2011 and the 30th day of
January 2011 stole monies belonging to Sunridge Court Housing Association.
It was the particular wording of these indictments, paired with the choice of offence which was proble-
matic in this case. At trial, D was convicted of six of the nine counts on the indict ment with D’s
dishonesty the primary focus of argument. It was argued by counsel for the appellant that the convictions
for theft were unsustainable as, although D had been dishonest, there were no acts constituting an
appropriation of property. At trial, this issue had not been left for the jury to decide with the trial judge
stating the following:
As I say, you probably don’t need me to tell you this, but the issue in this case was not whether the property
was appropriated, because Mrs Darroux did get the money that’s been complained about in each of those
charges, or at least most of it ...and the money, the prosecution say, belonged to Sunridge Court and they say
that ...[she was] keeping it permanently ....
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(4) 287–291
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318790805
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial