[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Bendris, R. v [2000] EWCA Crim 99 (13 January 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/99.html Cite as: [2000] EWCA Crim 99, [2000] 2 Cr App R(S) 183

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		13th January 2000

Thursday 13th January 2000

1. THE VICE PRESIDENT: On 9th June 1999, at Manchester Crown Court, this appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to obtain property by deception. On 10th September, he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Henshell for that offence to 15 months' imprisonment. A second similar count in the indictment was ordered to remain on the file on the usual terms. The appellant's brother, Ahmed, pleaded guilty to both of the conspiracy counts and he was sentenced to a total of 3 years' imprisonment. The appellant appeals against his sentence by leave of the Single Judge.
2. The conspiracy which he admitted related to the fraudulent claiming of Income Support and Job Seekers allowance between April 1994 and September 1998. In April, an income support claim form, giving an address in the Fallowfield area of Manchester, was completed and signed by the appellant. The claim was made on the basis of a fictitious single, unemployed, male, living alone, and was accompanied by a document indicating that the claimant had entered the United Kingdom in March 1994, to look for work. Proof of the claimant's identification was given in the form of a false passport which bore the appellant's photograph.
3. As a result of that claim, Income Support was paid until the summer of 1997. Thereafter, it was the appellant's brother who ran the continuing scheme until the autumn of 1998, save that, in December 1997, the appellant signed a new claim form to give sustenance to the conspiracy. Additionally, in November 1995, the appellant had submitted a claim in his own name, stating that he was an asylum seeker and income support was paid in consequence of that.
4. When he was arrested, in September 1998, the appellant denied involvement in criminal activity. But, thereafter his fingerprints were found on one of the claim forms. In consequence he was re-arrested in March 1999.
5. He was sentenced on the basis of an involvement in these matters for a period of about 4 years, and on the basis that a sum just in excess of £10,000 had been received by virtue of his activities. It is to be noted that his brother who, as we have said, was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, had been involved for a period of some 6 years and had received some £80,000 by way of social security benefit payments.
6. The appellant is 35 years of age. He had no convictions prior to his involvement in these matters. But he was convicted, in September 1998, for an offence of obtaining property by deception, and was dealt with in a non-custodial fashion. His brother had no previous convictions.
7. Mr Cassidy, on behalf of the appellant, whom he represented in the court below, submits that the sentence passed by the learned judge was excessive in the light, in particular, of a decision of this Court in R v Ellison (1998) 2 Cr App R(S) 382, BAILII: [1998] EWCA Crim 928 . In that case, the judgment of the Court was given by May LJ and, in reliance on a previous decision of this Court in
8. R v Stewart 9 Cr App R(S) 135, the Court reduced from 15 months to 10 months the sentence passed, upon a plea of guilty, for involvement in this type of fraud, indistinguishable, in terms of period of time and amount obtained, from the present case.
9. It may be that, in the not very distant future, it will be necessary for this Court to reconsider the level of sentence indicated in Stewart, in the light of the continuing and increasing prevalence of social security fraud, in the 13 years since that case was decided.
10. However, so far as the present appeal is concerned, we are prepared to approach the matter in accordance with Ellison. On this basis, the sentence of 15 months passed by the learned judge was too long, and we quash that sentence and substitute for it a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment. It is unfortunate that the sentencing judge did not have the advantage, which this Court has had, of having the authority of Ellison drawn to his attention.
11. The appeal is allowed to the extent which we have indicated.