Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council v Elizabeth Rankin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY,MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT |
| Judgment Date | 05 April 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 957 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/488/2006 |
| Date | 05 April 2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2006] EWHC 957 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Mr Justice Tugendhat
CO/488/2006
MR A. FINLAY (instructed by Solicitors to Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT
THE RESPONDENT was not present and was NOT REPRESENTED
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)."
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.
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.
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."
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?"
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial