CPS News Brief

Surgery manager charged with NHS fraud after undercover sting

Ben Reid, a prosecutor with the Specialist Fraud Division at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:  “I have authorised Asif Butt to be charged with one count of fraud by abuse of position, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

“As surgery manager, Asif Butt was in a position of trust at Sparbrook community and health centre, Birmingham. It is alleged that between 13 June 2012 and 4 August 2012, he committed fraud by dishonestly arranging for six people to be added to the NHS register, giving them access to free health care. Those six people were not entitled to free health care because they were not legally resident in the UK. It is further alleged that one of the six, who was an undercover journalist, obtained a free MRI scan and that Mr Butt asked to be paid £5,800.

“The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have decided that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

“Mr Butt will appear at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on 6^th August.

“Mr Butt has the right to a fair trial and it is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

Operation Pinetree: CPS charging decisions

In December 2013, the Metropolitan Police Service submitted evidence for charging advice to the CPS in relation to Operation Pinetree, an investigation into an alleged conspiracy to hack phone messages by journalists at the News of the World. Additional evidence in the case was provided in June 2014. The file asked for charging advice on eight suspects; all were formerly employed at the News of the World.

Gregor McGill, a senior lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Following a careful review of the evidence, we have now reached decisions in relation to six of the individuals referred to us under Operation Pinetree. The evidence in relation to two further suspects remains under consideration.

“In relation to these six individuals, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction in connection with allegations relating to the unlawful interception of telecommunications, namely voicemail messages ('phone hacking').

“In addition, two of the six individuals were considered for an offence under the Data Protection Act 1998. In relation to the first individual, it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. In relation to the second individual, it was determined that there was sufficient evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and so we went on to consider the public interest. A determination that there was sufficient evidence does not mean that the CPS has made any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; it is the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and one that is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.

“The public interest test of the Code requires us to determine, among other factors, the seriousness of the offence, the level of culpability and the harm caused. In accordance with the Code, it was concluded that a prosecution of one individual for an offence under the Data Protection Act would not be in the public interest.

“These decisions have been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and CPS guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media.

“Due to the ongoing review of evidence relating to the two remaining suspects in the case file we are unable to provide further reasoning for our decisions at this stage. We will of course consider what more can be said concerning these decisions in future.”

Notes to Editors:

The CPS’s function is not to determine criminal charges, but to make good faith, carefully considered assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to determine. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact which can only be determined by a court, but rather a judgment on what might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors (see Full Code Test below).

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence.

The Full Code Test has two stages: (i) the evidential stage; followed by (ii) the public interest stage.

The Evidential Stage

Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.

The Public Interest Stage

In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is met. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour.

It is quite possible that one public interest factor alone may outweigh a number of other factors which tend in the opposite direction. Although there may be public interest factors tending against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutors should consider whether nonetheless a prosecution should go ahead and those factors put to the court for consideration when sentence is passed.

24 people charged with £400,000 DWP benefit fraud

Andrew Penhale, Deputy Head of the CPS Specialist Fraud Division said: “Following an investigation by the Central Criminal Investigation Service, part of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the CPS has authorised charges against 18 men and six women, all of whom live or work in London, in connection with alleged benefit fraud.

“On dates between July 2011 and September 2013, it is alleged that these individuals took part in a large-scale, organised attack on the DWP benefits claims and payments system, dishonestly obtaining £446,844.85 between them.

“In order to carry out this fraud, it is alleged that the defendants hijacked the identities of innocent members of the public without their knowledge or consent. The evidence suggests that some of the defendants had access to third party personal data before providing details to other defendants in order for them to make fraudulent claims for DWP benefits, namely Jobseekers Allowance and Employment Support Allowance.

“The 24 individuals are charged with conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, we have determined that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and a prosecution of all the defendants is in the public interest.

“The defendants are due to appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 23 July 2014. They have a right to a fair trial and it is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

Two men sentenced for the murder of Zafer Eren

Jamie Marsh-Smith and Samuel Zerei were sentenced to life imprisonment today (14 July 2014) at the Central Criminal Court for the murder of Zafer Eren in April 2013. Marsh-Smith was also sentenced for the attempted murder of Inan Eren and the attempted murder of his accomplice, and co-defendant, Zerei. Both were found guilty on 10 July 2014.

Baljit Ubhey, CPS London Chief Crown Prosecutor, said:

“Gang crime is a significant driver of violent crime in the capital and I am committed to tackling this menacing form of offending.

“This case represents just one of a long list of incidents of gang war between the Tottenham Turks and the Hackney Turks in North London.

“These two gangs have been feuding for at least five years and their mutual hatred has caused unnecessary pain and bloodshed on both sides.

“The war between these gangs has resulted in murder, attempted murder, beatings, threats and damage to shops and clubs belonging to those perceived to be associated with them.

“In this latest episode of violence the victims were targeted on their own doorsteps.

“Although those convicted today were not part of either gang the evidence showed they had been hired on behalf of the Hackney Turks to attack persons associated with the Tottenham Turks.”

Background

Sentences: Jamie Marsh-Smith, 22

- one count of murder (Zafer Eren): life imprisonment with a minimum of 38 years

- two counts of attempted murder (Inan Eren and Samuel Zerei): 30 years imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently

Samuel Zerei, 21

- one count of murder (Zafer Eren): life imprisonment with a minimum of 28 years

Wayne McNeish, 33, helped Marsh-Smith flee London following the shooting of Zerei. He stood trial with the other defendants and was convicted of doing an act intended to pervert the course of public justice. He was sentenced to four-and-a half years imprisonment.