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resulted in charges, no further action was taken in two cases and the request for a charging decision on one file was withdrawn by the police after further evidence came to light.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.

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.

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."

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.”

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 – 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.”