CPS News Brief

Margaret Moran faces 21 charges in relation to parliamentary expenses claims

Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, today announced that Margaret Moran, former Member of Parliament for Luton South, has been summonsed to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 19 September 2011 to face 21 charges in relation to claims she made for parliamentary expenses. Mr Starmer said:

“Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence gathered by the police, we have decided there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to bring criminal charges against Margaret Moran. These charges relate to fraudulent claims with a total value of more than £60,000.

“The summons relates to 15 charges of false accounting, contrary to the Theft Act 1968. It is alleged that she claimed expenses for the furnishing and improvement of main residences between November 2004 and August 2008 through a scheme intended for the maintenance of second homes or offices.

“Ms Moran also faces six charges of forgery, contrary to the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, where it is alleged that she submitted forged invoices in support of some of her claims.”

On 15 May 2009, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner agreed to set up a panel of senior police officers and senior prosecuting lawyers to assess a number of complaints made to the Metropolitan Police Service in relation to parliamentary expense claims.

To date, 10 files of evidence in relation to 10 individuals have been submitted to the CPS for a charging decision. Of those, seven cases including that of Margaret Moran have resulted in charges, no further action was taken in two cases and the request for a charging decision on one file was withdrawn by the police after further evidence came to light. There are no longer any cases to be considered by the panel.

Mr Starmer added:

“Margaret Moran now stands charged with criminal offences and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice her trial.”

Further information

• False accounting is an offence under Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 and is punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment. Using a false document/instrument is an offence under Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment.
• The final evidence in this case was received from the Metropolitan Police Service on 14 July 2011. Final representations were received from the defence solicitors on 19 August 2011.

Court employee faces first prosecution under Bribery Act

We have decided that Munir Yakub Patel should be prosecuted under the Bribery Act 2010 in relation to allegations of misconduct during his employment at Redbridge Magistrates’ Court, Ilford, London. He is the first person to be prosecuted under the new Act.

Patel, an administrative clerk, faces a charge under Section 2 of the Act for requesting and receiving a bribe intending to improperly perform his functions.

Gaon Hart, reviewing lawyer for the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said:

“It is alleged that Patel promised an individual summonsed for a motoring offence that he could influence the course of criminal proceedings in exchange for £500, on 1 August 2011.

“I have reviewed all of the evidence gathered by the police and considered the Director of Public Prosecution’s guidelines on the Bribery Act. I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence to charge Munir Patel with requesting and receiving a bribe on 1 August 2011 intending to improperly perform his functions.

“Patel has already been charged with misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice. He still faces these charges, which relate to other alleged misconduct during his employment.”

The charge under the Bribery Act will be put to Patel at Southwark Crown Court on 14 October 2011.

Background

• The Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011.
• The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office have issued guidelines to prosecutors on the Act.
• Section 2(1) states that a person is guilty of an offence if they request, agree to receive, or accept a financial or other advantage intending that a relevant function or activity should be performed improperly. The maximum sentence for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment at the Crown Court.
• The Director of Public Prosecutions consented to this charge on 26 August 2011.
• Munir Yakub Patel was charged with misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice on 4 August 2011.

First ‘land banking’ fraud case

The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised City of London Police to charge four men with conspiracy to defraud their investors. This is the first time the Crown Prosecution Service has brought a prosecution for a ‘land banking’ fraud.

Luke Dockwray, reviewing lawyer in the CPS Central Fraud Group, said:

“This is the first time the Crown Prosecution Service has brought a prosecution for a ‘land banking’ fraud. The evidence we have suggests that these defendants sold land to investors by falsely representing that the land was suitable for future development and offered real investment opportunity.

“I considered over 16,000 pages of evidence gathered by the City of London Police during their investigation. Having reviewed that material, I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, and that it is in the public interest to charge Omar Eshpari, Stefan Mitchell, Dean Straker and Derial White with conspiracy to defraud their investors.”

See the City of London Police press release for more details.

Lord Hanningfield convicted

Paul White, known as Lord Hanningfield, has been convicted of six counts of theft by false accounting by a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court this afternoon. Stephen O’Doherty, reviewing lawyer for the CPS, welcomed the verdict:

“The defence of Lord Hanningfield, also known as Paul White, was that he was not paid a salary and that justified him claiming for expenses that he had never incurred – this was in our view completely unacceptable and clearly the jury agreed in returning guilty verdicts. It is common knowledge that a peer does not receive a salary for their services, and anyone accepting a peerage does so in that knowledge. Peers in the House of Lords are supposed to serve the public, not top-up their income at the public’s expense.

“The jury has today seen through this feeble excuse for his conduct and rightfully agreed with the prosecution that such behaviour is blatantly dishonest.”

We decided to prosecute Lord Hanningfield last year. He was convicted on all counts.

Elliot Morley admits Parliamentary expenses fraud

Former MP Elliot Morley has pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to two counts of false accounting. Simon Clements, reviewing lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Elliot Morley has today admitted his dishonesty. In doing so, he has accepted that his repeated and fraudulent claims for one mortgage that had been paid off and his excessive claims for another were not legitimate in any way. Mr Morley had claimed he was unaware the mortgage had been paid off. For most of us, paying off the mortgage is a red letter day and members of the public have found it difficult to comprehend his explanation that he was not aware that had happened.

“The Parliamentary expenses system exists to assist the public’s representatives in carrying out their duties, but Mr Morley used it to line his own pockets with just over £30,000 – more than an average household’s annual income. Such behaviour is blatantly dishonest and cannot be excused.”

Background

• False accounting is an offence under Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum sentence is seven years in the Crown Court.

• The total amount falsely claimed was £30,428.

• Count 1 - False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968

ELLIOT MORLEY, between 2 May 2004 and 15 May 2006, dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another, in furnishing information for the purpose of making allowance claims produced or made use of documents required for an accounting purpose, namely 19 Form ACA2 claim forms, which to his knowledge were or may have been misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, in that they stated he was paying £800 per month in mortgage interest, when in fact he was paying a lesser amount.

• Count 2 - False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968

ELLIOT MORLEY, between 13 May 2006 and 28 November 2007, dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another, in furnishing information for the purpose of making allowance claims produced or made use of documents required for an accounting purpose, namely 21 Form ACA2 claim forms, which to his knowledge were or may have been misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, in that they stated he was paying £800 per month in mortgage interest, when in fact the mortgage had been redeemed, and he was therefore paying no mortgage interest.

Two London clergymen charged over sham marriages

We have authorised the UK Border Agency’s London Immigration Crime Team to charge two Church of England clergy with conspiring to facilitate unlawful immigration. Andrew Hadik, CPS London reviewing lawyer, said:

“Having considered a full file of evidence in this case, I have decided that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Reverend Brian Shipsides and Reverend Elwon John for conspiring to facilitate entry and to obtain indefinite leave to remain in the UK in breach of immigration law. The charges relate to approximately 200 marriages, the majority between EU and non-EU residents, conducted by both clergymen at All Saints Church, Forest Gate, London between December 2007 and the end of July 2010.”

Brian Shipsides and Elwon John will appear at Stratford Magistrates’ Court on Friday 25 March 2011.

• The offence of conspiracy to facilitate unlawful immigration contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 carries a maximum sentence not exceeding 14 years’ imprisonment.

Merseyside police officer charged with misconduct in public office

A Merseyside police officer has been charged today with two offences of misconduct in public office and eight offences under the Data Protection Act. Mark Auty, reviewing lawyer from the CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“PC John Forrester has today been charged with two offences of misconduct in public office, one for engaging in sexual activity with a member of the public in 2008, and one for harassing and attempting to have sexual contact with another member of the public in 2009. The offences are alleged to have occurred at the complainants’ homes, while PC Forrester was on duty.

“In addition, PC Forrester is charged with eight offences under the Data Protection Act for knowingly or recklessly obtaining personal data relating to three females in 2010. The prosecution’s case is that he had no legitimate reason for accessing information about those people.

“This decision by the CPS follows a careful review of the evidence, which was gathered in an investigation by Merseyside Police.”

PC Forrester is a uniformed patrol officer for Merseyside Police. He will appear in Liverpool City Magistrates' Court on Friday 11 March 2011 at 09.45am.

• Misconduct in public office is a common law offence and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

• The maximum fine for s55 Data Protection Act (knowingly or recklessly obtaining personal data) in the Magistrates Court is the statutory maximum; the fine is unlimited in the Crown Court.

CPS Update - Thursday 10 February

• We have launched a public consultation on guidance for prosecutors dealing with retractions of rape and domestic violence allegations.

Individuals who retract truthful allegations out of fear are less likely to be prosecuted under the proposed new guidance for the offence of perverting the course of justice. But individuals who make malicious false allegations should know they risk prosecution.

See our press release and the consultation for full details.

• Jim Devine, former MP, has been convicted for theft by false accounting at Southwark Crown Court. Simon Clements, Head of the CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“Jim Devine submitted invoices for services that he had neither paid for nor received. In doing so, he took advantage of the trust that had been placed in him by virtue of the public office he held.

“Submitting a false invoice is plainly dishonest, regardless of why it has been done or who has done it. We say there is no excuse for such conduct and, with today’s conviction, it is clear the jury agreed.”

Devine was convicted on counts two and three of the indictment:

Count 2: False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968. Value: £2,880.

James Devine, between 30 September 2008 and 31 May 2009, dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another, in furnishing information for the purpose of making allowance claims produced or made use of documents required for an accounting purpose, namely two Form ACA2 claim forms, one Form PAAE2 claim form and three invoices in the name of Tom O’Donnell Hygiene & Cleaning Services, which to his knowledge were or may have been misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, in that they purported to show that Tom O’Donnell Hygiene & Cleaning Services had provided and charged for the professional services described in the documents, when in fact the services had not been so provided or charged for.

Count 3: False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968. Value: £5,505.

Jim Devine, between 1 March and 9 April 2009, dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another, in furnishing information for the purpose of making allowance claims produced or made use of documents required for an accounting purpose, namely two Form Comms1 claim forms and two invoices in the name of Armstrong Printing Limited, which to his knowledge were or may have been misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, in that they purported to show that Armstrong Printing Limited had provided and charged for the professional services described in the documents, when in fact the services had not been so provided or charged for.

Mr Devine was also acquitted of count one, which related to claims worth £360 in total for cleaning services.

• CPS Durham has advised Durham Police there is not enough new evidence under the double jeopardy provisions for the Director of Public Prosecutions to authorise an investigation into former GP Howard Martin, acquitted of the murder of three of his patients six years ago. Durham Chief Crown Prosecutor Chris Enzor said:

“The case was reopened by Durham Police after patients’ families complained about remarks made by Mr Martin in an interview with a national newspaper.

“The law was changed in 2005 to allow those who had been acquitted of serious offences to face a retrial in certain circumstances if there is new and compelling evidence. The law allows the police to make certain preliminary inquiries but the re-opening of an investigation needs the consent of the DPP, as does an application to the Court of Appeal for a retrial. It is for the Chief Crown Prosecutor to act as the channel between the police and the DPP.

“The police provided me with evidence given at the inquest into the deaths of three of Mr Howard’s patients: Mr Moss, Mr Weldon and Mr Gittins, as well as evidence from disciplinary proceedings of the General Medical Council. There were also copies of tapes and interview transcripts, obtained by a court order, following comments Mr Martin made to a reporter from the Daily Telegraph.

“The areas covered by the inquest and the GMC disciplinary proceedings were broadly the same as in Mr Martin’s trial and no materially new issues arose. Mr Martin’s interviews with the Daily Telegraph amounted overall to a continued denial, not an admission, of guilt.

“After careful consideration of this material, including discussion with leading counsel who prosecuted in the 2005 murder trial, I have decided that in these circumstances there is not sufficient new evidence, as the law requires, to warrant the conduct of an investigation which must the authorised by the DPP. I have advised the police of this.

“I appreciate this has been a distressing time for the families of Mr Moss, Mr Weldon and Mr Gittins and I have offered to meet with them to explain in greater detail the reasons for my decision.

“I have also looked to see whether there is any new evidence which might support a prosecution relating to certain other patients. These cases were looked at previously and it was decided at the time there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. In all of these cases, I have concluded that there is no new evidence to allow us to start criminal proceedings."

Three Pakistan cricketers and agent face corruption and cheating charges

We have authorised charges of conspiracy to obtain and accept corrupt payments and also conspiracy to cheat against Mohammad Amir, Mohammad Asif, Salman Butt and Mazhar Majeed. Simon Clements, Head of the CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“We have decided that Mohammad Amir, Mohammad Asif, Salman Butt and their agent, Mazhar Majeed, should be charged with conspiracy to obtain and accept corrupt payments and also conspiracy to cheat.

“These charges relate to allegations that Mr Majeed accepted money from a third party to arrange for the players to bowl ‘no balls’ on 26 and 27 August 2010, during Pakistan’s Fourth Test at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London.

“Mr Majeed has been summonsed to appear for a first hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 17 March.

“Summonses for the same court date have been issued for the three players and they have been asked to return to this country voluntarily, as they agreed to do in September last year. Their extradition will be sought should they fail to return.

“The Crown Prosecution Service has been working closely with the Metropolitan Police Service since the allegations of match-fixing became public on 29 August 2010.

“We received a full file of evidence on 7 December 2010 and we are satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute.

“I would remind everyone that these men are entitled to a fair trial and should be regarded as innocent of these charges unless it is proven otherwise in court. The International Cricket Council tribunal is due to announce its decision tomorrow, but criminal proceedings are active now.

“It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice the trial.”

• Conspiracy to commit an offence is defined under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Conspiracies are indictable-only and must be sent to the Crown Court. Section 3 of the Act specifies that the maximum sentence for an offence also applies to a conspiracy to commit that offence.

• Obtaining and accepting corrupt payments is an offence contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. It carries a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine at the Crown Court. The Attorney General has consented to this charge.

• Cheating is an offence contrary to section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. It carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine at the Crown Court.

Lord Taylor convicted of false accounting

John Taylor, known as Lord Taylor of Warwick, has been convicted of six counts of theft by false accounting. Stephen O’Doherty, reviewing lawyer for CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“No-one could sincerely believe that a home in which they had no financial interest, had never lived in and had scarcely visited could count as their main residence, or that it was permissible to claim for driving between Oxford and Parliament when they had not done so. Yet Lord Taylor claimed exactly that and landed the taxpayer with a bill of more than £11,000.

“Today, a jury has seen through his dishonesty by finding him guilty of theft by false accounting. He will now face the consequences of his actions.”

Sentencing of PC Stephen Mitchell

Following the sentencing of PC Stephen Mitchell, the CPS Crown Advocate, Paul Simpson, said:

“Stephen Mitchell is a sexual predator. He used and abused his position as a police officer to target vulnerable women for his own sexual gratification.

“The sentence imposed today reflects the gravity of his offending and recognises the danger he poses to women. I would like to pay tribute to the victims in this case. In giving evidence and re-living some of the darkest days of their lives they showed immense courage. Without them this prosecution could not have been brought.”

CPS Update - Tuesday 11 January

Eric Illsley MP has today pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to false accounting in his parliamentary expenses. Simon Clements, Head of the CPS Special Crime Division, said today:

“Eric Illsley, the MP for Barnsley Central, has admitted taking more than £14,000 of the public’s money that he was not entitled to. This was a significant sum of money and the grossly inflated claims he submitted could not be attributed to an oversight or accounting error – indeed he claimed that the expenses system was a way of supplementing members’ salaries. By his guilty pleas he has accepted that he was dishonest in making these claims. As an elected representative, Eric Illsley took advantage of the trust placed in him by his constituents to act honourably on their behalf. Instead, he siphoned off public money into his own pockets and betrayed those who rightly expected the highest standards of integrity from him as a Member of Parliament.”

Note: Eric Illsley was charged in May with dishonestly claiming £27,704. This represented the total value of the claims made for expenses incurred while maintaining his second home. After discussions with the defence, we have agreed that Eric Illsley was entitled to claim for some of those expenses as he had actually incurred them. We have accepted a guilty plea on the basis that the total amount defrauded was £14,204.

CPS Update Wednesday 22 December

• CPS has today announced the below decision:

 

CPS DECIDES NO CHARGES CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST MEMBERS OF ENFIELD CRIME SQUAD

 The Crown Prosecution Service has today decided that no charges will be brought against any member of the Enfield Crime Squad after allegations that they assaulted and abused suspects and mis-appropriated their property. 

 The CPS Special Crime Division carefully reviewed files of evidence submitted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Metropolitan Police Service’s Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) in relation to 15 members of Enfield Crime Squad. 

 The evidence gathered by the IPCC related to an allegation that in November 2008, during the course of a search of a house for drugs, members of the squad assaulted and abused two men in their custody.  The men claimed they had been beaten and one alleged an officer attempted to hold his head under water. 

 Simon Clements, head of the CPS Special Crime Division, said:    “Both men provided statements to the IPCC but their accounts substantially contradicted each other and their identification of the officers allegedly involved was clearly wrong.  Their claims were further undermined by the lack of medical evidence to support claims of repeated assault.  In the absence of reliable, corroborative evidence there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against any officer.

 “Put simply, events could not have happened as the two men described them.”

 The evidence submitted by the DPS included an allegation that in June 2008, officers used excessive force to stop a stolen car. There were also allegations that between 2008 and 2009, officers took suspects’ property such as electrical goods and cars, including a Mercedes, for their personal use.

 Mr Clements said:   “I looked very carefully at the evidence submitted by the DPS and concluded that in no instance was there sufficient evidence to reach the criminal standard for prosecution.

“In particular I considered whether a number of officers could be charged with misconduct in public office for using excessive force when detaining a disqualified driver in a stolen car. 

 “The driver of the stolen car would not assist the DPS investigation and the officers justified their approach by saying they had been told the driver was dangerous and had a history of carrying weapons and violence towards police officers.  In those circumstances it was impossible to prove that the force used was not proportionate or reasonable.”

 Speaking about the allegations relating to suspects’ property, Mr Clements said: “The squad was also accused of misusing a system that allows suspects to ‘disclaim’ ownership of property found in their possession.  From reviewing the evidence, I found this system had been used to circumvent formal police procedures for the seizure and proper disposal of criminal property. 

 “The officers said they believed they were seizing stolen property or property obtained using criminal proceeds, and understood that the Proceeds of Crime Act allowed them to do so.  They said their approach was condoned and supported by their managers.  There was no evidence that the seized items were put to officers’ personal use, rather than deployed in police-related activities.

 “At the request of the CPS, the DPS interviewed a number of the squad’s senior managers.   While not confirming knowledge of specific actions, the managers accepted they had been generally aware of what was happening.  Without being able to prove any specific knowledge, the managers could not be prosecuted.

 “Their evidence also means that we could not charge the officers with theft because, given the open way their actions took place within the police station, we would not be able to prove they acted dishonestly. For the same reason they could not be charged with misconduct in public office as recent case law shows where the substance of the allegation under consideration is the dishonest appropriation of property, we would need to prove they had acted dishonestly to prove that offence too.

 “It is clear that internal police procedures were flouted and breached on a regular basis. But we cannot prosecute members of a squad unless we can show to the criminal standard that they acted dishonestly.”

This case has been very carefully reviewed by experienced lawyers within the CPS Special Crime Division including the head of the division.  The papers were also sent to a senior QC with unrivalled experience in the law relating to misconduct by police officers.  Counsel concurred with the decision reached by the Special Crime Division.   

CPS Update - Monday 20 December

• We have advised the Independent Police Complaints Commission that Paul Cook, a customs officer, should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The reviewing lawyer from the Special Crime Division, Sally Walsh, said:

“I have advised the IPCC that Mr Cook should be summonsed to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 11 January 2011.

“The charges relate to a period from 1993 to 2001, when Mr Cook was an officer of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, and worked in the National Investigation Service.

“I have reviewed a file of evidence from the IPCC and have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction so that a jury could reasonably conclude that his conduct fell significantly below the standards the public are entitled to expect from someone in his position.

“I considered the public interest very carefully in deciding whether Mr Cook should be prosecuted given the length of time which has elapsed for some of these allegations. However, the seriousness of the offences and the allegations mean I have decided the public interest requires a prosecution.

“Mr Cook now faces prosecution for criminal offences and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice his trial.”

CPS Update – Monday 6 December

In the News

• Former MP David Chaytor pleaded guilty to three counts of false accounting under the Theft Act on Friday at the Old Bailey. Simon Clements, Head of the CPS Special Crime Division, made a statement that was carried live on air and widely reported over the weekend. The full statement is as follows:

“David Chaytor has today admitted his dishonesty and he will now face the consequences of his actions. No-one, no matter their position, should be allowed to take money that they know they have no right to. By his actions, David Chaytor has abused the trust placed in him by the public.

“I would however remind all concerned that today’s outcome relates to the actions of David Chaytor and David Chaytor alone. Every defendant is entitled to a fair trial and nothing that has happened today should reflect on any defendant in any other case.”