R v Parker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 1994 |
| Date | 03 March 1994 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Staughton, Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Holland
Crime - procedure - obtaining property by deception - need to direct jury on relevant law
Where a person was charged with obtaining local authority housing repair and improvement grants by falsely certifying his intention to make a dwelling available for let as a residence, the jury had to decide whether he knew what was meant by a "dwelling let as a residence" and when he certified his intent whether he was telling a lie.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in a reserved judgment allowing the appeal of Howard Parker against his conviction on June 23, 1993 at Bolton Crown Court (Judge Lever, QC) on six of 14 counts of obtaining property by deception under section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968 for which he was sentenced on November 30, 1993 to 12 months imprisonment concurrently on each count.
Mr Michael Austin-Smith, QC and Mr Daniel Janner, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Michael Shorrock, QC and Mr Anthony Russell for the prosecution.
LORD JUSTICE STAUGHTON, giving the judgment of the court, said that in order to obtain a repair or improvement grant an applicant had to sign a certificate of intention either that he or his family would occupy the property as his only or main home, or that he would make the dwelling available for letting as a residence: section 464(1) of the Housing Act 1985.
A certificate would be untrue either because he intended to sell the property or because he intended to let it in separate parts not as a home: section 464(5) of the 1985 Act.
The prosecution had alleged on the relevant counts that the appellant had signed certificates for two properties under the second limb of section 464(1) and that those were false because he intended to let the dwellings in separate parts.
The first question was whether the certificates were true. In the two properties for which the certificates had been signed, there were seven and ten separate study bedrooms respectively, one kitchen and bathroom in one property and two in the other. Each study bedroom was let to and occupied by students.
It was clear that the phrase "dwelling let as a residence" in section 464(5) meant only one single residence. It was conceded that the singular could not include the plural.
There were authorities based on other statutory provisions to assist in a decision whether a house...
To continue reading
Request your trial