Not another bloody inspection

Not another bloody inspection!

If I had a pound for every time I’d heard this from some poor benighted benefits or fraud manager I’d have, well, at least a tenner. But you know what I mean. It seems that every authority I speak to has some sort of inspection on-going or imminent. And let’s be clear – it’s not just in the area of benefits and fraud – wherever you go in local authority there seems to be some sort of inspection just around the corner. Either that or staff are reeling from the impact and cursing at the inspectors’ backs as they leave.

Now I am not advocating a total removal of the inspection process, but I am starting to wonder where it will end. One of our clients is in the throes of implementing one new scheme only to discover that they are to be subject to an inspection in the, already fraught, run up to ‘go-live’. Another is trying to implement recommendations from a report that seemed to ignore changes that were already planned. At a third the final report was, in effect, identical to the first draft, with no attention paid to several meetings and disagreements.

Which is why I was pleased to see reports that the new head of the Audit Commission, James Strachan, has said that the government's use of public service targets has become counter-productive. The opposition had been understandably worried about this appointment – it could easily be seen as a ‘friendly’ appointment when you consider that Mr Strachan’s partner is Baroness Blackstone the culture minister. Not a bit of it!

"We have as many, if not the most, inspections, audits and checks and balances in our public services of any country in Europe.” He made it clear that, in his opinion, until we can say that we have the best public services in Europe, we have to constantly question the increasing central control of public services.

Which I think is a rather good point, don’t you? Very often the inspectors are giving what amounts to an opinion on how we work and how well we do. Fine if they are at the top of the field and are experts in the area. But what if they aren’t? Ever been inspected by someone who you think just ‘couldn’t cut it’? Or with whom you have a personality clash? Or who tows the ‘party line’ even though they admit they know it’s silly? Wouldn’t happen? Seen ‘em all!

And the report is still published. And it still follows you. And if you say, “Well that’s their opinion but we had a major personality clash” everyone nods and whispers, “well yes, but there’s no smoke without fire.”

Mr Strachan says that one of his main concerns is to make sure that the Audit Commission helps to reduce regulation and inspection. His statements would seem to indicate that he has sympathy with those in public services who are concerned about being swamped by audits, inspections and performance indicators.

Mr Strachan, who has been deaf since birth, is going to be on eighty grand a year for a three-day-a-week post. "I have a pretty good record for being independent” he says. “I think you should judge people by their actions. And if you are deaf, actions speak an awful lot louder than words."

So watch out the inspectors – looks like someone’s going to be looking at what you do and whether it is worth it or not! Maybe it’s time for the inspectors to be saying, “Oh no, not another bloody inspection!”
_____________________

Chancellor announces measures to tackle unemployment

Chancellor Gordon Brown has outlined measures to break the culture that "no-one around here works" by encouraging the unemployed back to work in Britain's most deprived areas.

He intends to help tackle the problem by taking job advisers onto estates and helping more people access the support available through the New Deal. He also intends to provide training in literacy, numeracy and other basic skills.

The Chancellor also intends to designate 2,000 new enterprise areas that will encourage home-grown economic activity in the most deprived parts of the country. These zones will benefit from a number of measures including stamp duty exemption on business property purchases and more help from the Small Business Service.

The Chancellor said, "Because we must break the destructive culture that "no-one around here works", we will provide far more help than in the past in these areas, using the sanctions and opportunities available in the new deal and where necessary taking job advisers onto estates, and extending access to the help available through the new deal and equip the unemployed with the skills they need to get into work, including providing training in literacy, numeracy and other basic skills. But in return we will expect the unemployed to take up the jobs that are available."
_____________________

More Teeth for Planning Staff

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing greater powers in a consultation paper on their proposed review of planning enforcement system.

Proposals include making planning breaches criminal offences, increasing financial penalties so that they are more of a deterrent and stopping developers from buying extra time to enjoy the benefit of unauthorised development by appealing to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice.

If you want to comment on this document, you have until 31/12/02 to do so.

Visit http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/consult/enforce/pdf/enforce.pdf to read the document.
_____________________

Man jailed for benefit fraud

At Chelmsford Crown Court on Friday 11^th October, James Pemberton, 62, from Barkingside was jailed for four months for benefit fraud.

Mr Pemberton had been claiming benefit from Epping Forest Council, the Department for Work and Pensions and the London Borough of Redbridge, on the grounds that he did not own any property and was not related to his landlords. Evidence came to light that Mr Pemberton did, in fact, own two properties and his daughter and son-in-law were his landlords. Mr Pemberton claimed that he had not known his son-in-law would count as a relative for housing benefit purposes.

Mr Pemberton admitted he was guilty at Epping Magistrates Court and at his first hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court on 28^th August, his case was adjourned to give him time to pay back the £25,750 in housing benefit which he had fraudulently claimed. He was given an extra two weeks to repay the money but he did not do so.

The judge who sentenced Mr Pemberton said that he was much more dishonest than he was willing to admit and that he had been paid substantial amounts as a result of his dishonesty. Mr Pemberton will have to serve at least two months of his sentence before he is eligible for release.

John Knapman, Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder for Epping Forset Council said “Benefit Fraud is a very serious offence. The case illustrates just how seriously we take it.”
_____________________

Attempted Insurance Fraud

Donato IANNICELLI of Colwick, Nottingham appeared before Nottingham Crown Court charged with attempting to obtain property by deception on the 4^th October 2001. He pleaded guilty to attempting an insurance fraud, which included the use of fraudulent hospital stamps.

IANNICELLI a former taxi company boss and now a taxi driver attempted to claim £14,000 from an insurance company for loss of earnings, stating that he had broken his leg. He used counterfeit doctors notes and endorsed them with a counterfeit rubber stamp, the stamp was never recovered.

The fraud was only spotted by an alert insurance assessor who recalled a previous similar fraudulent claim by a taxi driver from Nottingham the previous year. Although very similar in their method there was no connection to the two cases.

The insurance company in question have now changed their methods of operation and deal directly with doctors and hospitals to prevent further attempts to use falsified medical documents.

IANNICELLI stated that he had lost his taxi business and faced financial ruin and having taken out loans admitted the attempt was stupid. He was sentenced to a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years.
_____________________

GP convicted of benefit fraud but not struck off

Dr Ali Havutcu, a GP from Balmoral Road, Harrow, who was convicted of benefit fraud and fined £1,000 with £2,226.25 costs, has escaped being struck off by the General Medical Council.

Dr Havutcu, who was renting out his property to his parents, helped them to falsely claim Housing Benefit by claiming not to be related to them. A spokesperson for the General Medical Council, Sarah Page said “On a number of occasions he helped his parents to fill in application forms in order that they could have Housing Benefit.” Dr Havutcu claimed that his family were in financial difficulty as his father had stopped working. Ms Page said “He admitted his parents were late with rent payments and he accepted payment in kind when his mother did work for him, washing clothes and ironing.”

Dr Havutcu’s original overpayment of benefit was calculated at £27,000 but this figure was reduced to approximately £10,000 following an appeal.

Following a hearing, the General Medical Council have decided not to take any further action against Dr Havutcu. Committee chairman John Shaw said that the interests of patients and the issue of proportionality had been taken into account and he advised Dr Havutcu “You must not sign documents which you believe to be false or misleading. It is important that a general practitioner cannot allow himself to be pressurised into writing such a document. The court recognised that you made no personal gain, had come under family pressure, and that you were of previous good character.”
______________________

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) - New Consultation Expected

Following the public outcry in June, the Home Office retreated from plans to extend access to communications data held under the RIPA to a wide range of Government bodies. The Home Office is expected to release a public consultation at the end of the year which will revisit the issues surrounding section 22 of the RIPA. The withdrawn amendment was intended to change a very specific part of the act - namely extending the list of bodies allowed to obtain a notice to be served on ISPs, telco's and other communications providers requiring them to hand over confidential information - ranging from subscriber details to call logs or traffic data.

Currently, RIPA restricts these requests to law enforcement, Inland Revenue and intelligence services. The amending order would have extended the availability of these notices to a far broader group - from the Home Office (who proposed the legislation) right through to such bodies as the Food Standards Agency and the Postal Services Commission. As a "Universal Service Provider within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000" it is likely that the Royal Mail would also be able to serve notices.

In June, Intellect submitted that the proposed powers went well beyond those originally contemplated under the RIPA, and would impose extensive costs and liability on communications service providers, including many companies and organisations that do not understand they fall under the Act. Intellect welcomes the opportunity to participate in an open and transparent consultation and will be representing members at the Government/Industry Forum on Technology and Law Enforcement where the developments on the RIPA will be discussed. We will continue to keep members updated on developments. Contact Beatrice Rogers
_______________________

Threat to trial by jury

Plans are to include "judge only" cases in serious or complex fraud trials or where there is clear evidence that there has been an attempt to intimidate or tamper with the jury. In cases where a judge stops a trial and dismisses a jury, he would be able to continue the hearing alone. At present, the only way to deal with attempts to intimidate a jury is to order police protection, in some cases involving armed officers. In the serious cases it can mean ‘round the clock’ police protection.

This further attempt to erode the right to jury trial comes after the Home Secretary’s earlier plans to deny certain defendants the right to choose jury trial were shelved. However the government is set to reinstate plans to restrict the right to a jury trial in the Criminal Justice Bill when it is announced.
_______________________

OFT stops misleading mailshots

The OFT has stopped two sole traders, Chris Yewdall of Baguley, Manchester, and Finbar Fox of Lytham St Anne's, Lancashire, both trading separately under the name Data Protection Agency, from issuing their misleading advertisements.

The OFT considered both advertisements, which gave the impression that they came from official bodies, to be misleading. They left businesses under the impression that they were under a legal obligation to register with the sender immediately and did not properly explain who was exempt from notification. Businesses which were mislead by the mailshot ended up £95 poorer.

This action follows injunctions obtained earlier this year against DPARS Ltd of Manchester and Gary McNeish (both also trading as Data Protection Act Registration Service) and Data Protection Agency Services Ltd of Southport (also trading as Data Collection Enforcement Agency) and their director Michael Sullivan to prevent similar misleading advertising for data protection notification services.
_______________________

Threat to trial by jury

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is reported to be considering giving judges the power to try cases without a jury if there is a serious risk of intimidation or bribery of jurors. If he decides to go ahead, this proposal will form part of the new Criminal Justice Bill in next week's Queen's Speech.

Plans are to include "judge only" cases in serious or complex fraud trials or where there is clear evidence that there has been an attempt to intimidate or tamper with the jury. In cases where a judge stops a trial and dismisses a jury, he would be able to continue the hearing alone. At present, the only way to deal with attempts to intimidate a jury is to order police protection, in some cases involving armed officers. In the serious cases it can mean ‘round the clock’ police protection.

This further attempt to erode the right to jury trial comes after the Home Secretary’s earlier plans to deny certain defendants the right to choose jury trial were shelved. However the government is set to reinstate plans to restrict the right to a jury trial in the Criminal Justice Bill when it is announced.
______________________

Chancellor announces measures to tackle unemployment

Chancellor Gordon Brown has outlined measures to break the culture that "no-one around here works" by encouraging the unemployed back to work in Britain's most deprived areas.

The Chancellor also intends to designate 2,000 new enterprise areas that will encourage home-grown economic activity in the most deprived parts of the country. These zones will benefit from a number of measures including stamp duty exemption on business property purchases and more help from the Small Business Service.

The Home Office has published a research report, a publication under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which shows that people from black and minority ethnic groups are more likely than the rest of the population to believe that the Criminal Justice System is doing a good job.

The report says that, whilst these ethnic groups may have the greatest faith in the system as a whole they remain more likely to fall foul of it.

To read the report log on to: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/s95race02.pdf
_____________________

New guidance leaflets

The Department for Work and Pensions has issued guidance on benefits for those who are claiming benefits as unemployed, long-term sick or disabled. The leaflets include:

SD3 - Long-term ill or disabled?
SD6 - Ill or disabled because of a disease or deafness caused by work?
SD7 - Disabled because of an accident at work?
SD8 - Ill or disabled because of working with asbestos in your job?
WK1 - Financial help if you work or are looking for work
WK2 - Financial help if you are looking for work
WK3 - Need help starting work or getting back to work?
WK4 - Financial help if you work or are doing voluntary work

The documents, published on 31^st October, provide basic benefit information to claimants or would-be claimants. Copies of the leaflets can be obtained from Job Centres, DWP offices or via the DWP website.

Benefits investigators may find it useful to appraise themselves of the contents of these leaflets. To see a copy of these publications visit the DWP website and follow the appropriate link from here: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/2002/index.htm
_____________________

Threat to trial by jury

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is reported to be considering giving judges the power to try cases without a jury if there is a serious risk of intimidation or bribery of jurors. If he decides to go ahead, this proposal will form part of the new Criminal Justice Bill in next week's Queen's Speech.

Plans are to include "judge only" cases in serious or complex fraud trials or where there is clear evidence that there has been an attempt to intimidate or tamper with the jury. In cases where a judge stops a trial and dismisses a jury, he would be able to continue the hearing alone. At present, the only way to deal with attempts to intimidate a jury is to order police protection, in some cases involving armed officers. In the serious cases it can mean ‘round the clock’ police protection.

This further attempt to erode the right to jury trial comes after the Home Secretary’s earlier plans to deny certain defendants the right to choose jury trial were shelved. However the government is set to reinstate plans to restrict the right to a jury trial in the Criminal Justice Bill when it is announced.
____________________

Consultations

The Lord Chancellor's Department have issued a consultation paper about the Data Protection Act.

The paper seeks comments from individuals, who have the right of subject access and organisations which receive subject access requests, about the subject access arrangements under the Data Protection Act 1998.

To read the paper go here: http://www.lcd.gov.uk/consult/foi/dpsacons.htm

They have also issued a consultation paper about the role of the Social Security Commissioners, in relation to tax credits.

The paper seeks views on the procedure of the Social Security Commissioners in determining appeals and applications about tax credits and gives details of an increase in appellants’ rights.

To read the paper go here: http://www.lcd.gov.uk/consult/general/taxcredit.htm
_______________________

Home Owner Guilty of False Claim

Andrew Uhleman, of White Hart Close, Billesdon, Leicestershire has admitted receiving a total of £8,450 in Housing and Council Tax Benefit to which he was not entitled.

Leicester Crown Court heard how between 1996 and 1998 Uhleman, 44, dishonestly claimed to be living in a rented property costing £880 per month. To support his claim he produced a tenancy agreement with a property agency.

An investigation uncovered that Uhleman in fact owned the property and he had no liability to pay rent.

Timothy Palmer, defending, said there had been a substantial delay in bringing the case to court because of legal complications, not of the defendants making. In April 1998 he voluntarily stopped fraudulently claiming before matters came to light. He later sold the house in which he had been living.

Imposing a community punishment order, Judge Simon Hammond said: “Benefit payments are there to help people in need and not for cheats. It’s actually cheating one’s fellow citizens.”
______________________

Pensioner Netted £25,000

Patrick Bonner, 66, of the Wirral, perpetrated the biggest benefit fraud in Wirral’s history by receiving over £25,000 in benefits to which he was not entitled.

On the 4^th November 2002 Wallasey Magistrates court were told how Bonner, an ex-soldier and director of Peartree Farm, Raby Mere Road, Raby failed to declare a property owned with his wife Sheila, 58, which they rented out. He also inflated his rent from £220 to £320 a month. He pleaded guilty to four charges of failing to declare joint ownership of a property from June 1996 to March 2002, submitting a false document namely his rent book, making a false statement in September 1999 and a false statement in December 2001.

Ken Abraham, Wirral BC solicitor, told the court that the investigation had started following an anonymous tip off. Mr Abraham said: “This was a deception carried out over a six year period involving a great deal of public money.” The court was also told that Bonner, who has no previous convictions, could face a seven-year prison sentence for the deception.

In mitigation his defence stated that Bonner had “dug himself into a hole which proved impossible to get out of. He got used to having money. He did not live a lavish lifestyle. He is ashamed and truly sorry for what he has done. He has already used his life savings to pay back £5,000 of the money he owes.”

Bonner asked for six other offences to be taken into consideration. He will be sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court on December 9^th.
_____________________

Probation funding increase backs up ‘less prison’ call

Probation Minister Hilary Benn announced an extra £70m next year for the National Probation Service, to support its programme of modernisation. The service's total budget will rise to £746m in 2003/4 – an increase of over fifty percent since 1998.

Ms Benn said, "The National Probation Service has come a very long way in a very short time. Research published last week showed that the NPS had reduced the reconviction rates for those under its supervision by 3.1 per cent, thanks largely to the process of change that it has embarked upon. Considering that reconviction rates have been relatively constant for a decade or more before, this represents real progress. No one can now say that there are no effective alternatives to custody.

"The Criminal Justice White Paper, "Justice for All", envisages an even greater role for community sentences in the future. Proposals such as Custody Minus, Custody Plus and Intermittent Custody will place the NPS in an increasingly central role in the Criminal Justice system.

"What we want is not tougher, or softer, sentencing, but more focussed and more effective sentencing. If sentences are effective in preventing people from re-offending then there will be fewer people in the correctional system. We are committed to the development of alternatives to custody, and today's announcement is further proof of this."
_____________________

Fast Track for Regular Offenders

Home Office Minister Lord Falconer has launched the Persistent Offender Scheme, part of the government’s Narrowing the Justice Gap strategy which aims reduce the number of unsolved crimes. A major part of this will be the use of a new hi-tech targeting and tracking system to help catch and convict repeat offenders – those who are responsible for a large volume of crime.

The scheme aims to help police target those who have been convicted of six or more offences in the last year, together with those who the police identify as being persistent based on local intelligence.

The scheme will include a new IT tool which should ‘flag’ the most prolific offenders on the ‘PNC’. Local stations will then receive regular lists of the persistent offenders in their area and they can be tracked on a new web-based system known as JTrack.

The aim is two-fold. First to help police to target, catch and charge these offenders and second: to make sure that CPS bring these people in front of the courts as quickly as possible. This so called Premium Service has already been used by CPS in the areas being targeted for street crime reduction.

Publishing this report and scheme, Lord Falconer acknowledged that too few offenders are brought to justice – out of five million crimes which were reported to the police only 20% led to offenders being brought to justice. He said, “The current size of the justice gap is unacceptable, we can and must do better. Narrowing the Justice Gap is a key measure of the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System and a crucial indicator of success in reducing crime."
_____________________

Getting Knotted

DWP investigator Ian Jarman is to take the Department of Work and Pensions to a tribunal following orders to wear a tie for the first time in his twenty-six years with the department.

As part of the newly introduced dress code, creating a “smarter corporate image”, Mr Jarman is now required to wear a shirt and tie but has so far refused to and is currently on a written warning.

The 46 year old is now preparing a case for sexual discrimination as the order only applies to male employers.

As well as failing to comply to the code Mr Jarman has found an ethnic dress loophole and has warn a kilt to work rather than splashing out on a new wardrobe. Mr Jarman said, “I have had an oral and a written warning and at the moment I am complying in protest because the next step would have potentially been the sack.” He continued, “I feel very strongly about it as I feel there is discrimination. Women are virtually allowed to wear what they want.”

Fraudweb will keep you updated on the outcome of the case.
_______________________

Government to target 'culture of adjournments'

Measures to be announced in the Queen's Speech could lead to lawyers being ‘fined’ in a bid to reduce court delays. The move comes as ministers seek to end the adjournment culture, which is rife in the court system.

For many years judges and magistrates, and all those concerned in the criminal justice system have been appalled at the number of times a case is listed only for one or other lawyer to ask for an adjournment as ‘they are not ready to proceed yet’. Every adjournment means a further delay in justice and (the cynical might say) another ‘repeater’ fee to the advocate.

At the moment the only real sanction that magistrates or judges have is to refuse the adjournment. New plans being considered could result in lawyers finding themselves personally liable, perhaps with something similar to a ‘wasted costs order’ passed against them.
__________________

Member of Porn Ring in the Dock

Antoni Skinner, who was jailed for his part in the world’s biggest internet child porn ring, has been convicted of Housing Benefit and Income Support fraud.

Skinner, an IT consultant, from Cheltenham received over £4,500 during 2000 and 2001. Jailed for 18 months for his part in the Wonderland Club in February 2001, Skinner had used a large amount of the money received to pay for travel and accommodation expenses during the February 2001 trial.

After his release from Usk Prison in Monmouthshire, Skinner moved to Bristol but was soon picked up by the police for questioning over the benefit offences.

Skinner had claimed that he was unemployed when in fact he was working full time. During a police interview he said, “I did it because it was necessary.”

Tony Mills, defending, said that Skinner had to cheat the system to survive. He said that Skinner was getting his life back on track after his release from prison and another spell behind bars would “destroy his efforts”.

Skinner was sentenced to the maximum community service order of 240 hours.

A spokesman for Cheltenham Borough Council said: “Today’s result sends out the message that benefit fraud will not be tolerated. Whenever we receive information that benefit fraud is being committed we will investigate thoroughly. People committing this crime will be taken down the same route as Skinner.”
___________________

“Wealthy Woman in Property” Convicted

Angela Janet Lloyd, 46, of Hillside Gardens, Old Colwyn wept as she was ordered to pay fines totalling £28,000 within six months or face an 18 month prison sentence.

Lloyd admitted dishonestly claiming Income Support, Housing and Council Tax Benefit between October 1995 and June 2001 totalling nearly £46,000. Defence counsel, Neil Flewitt, claimed that her estranged husband was “the author of her misfortunes”.

Mr Flewitt said Lloyd had been persuaded by her husband to re-mortgage the Hillside Gardens house to repay his business debts. In return the house was transferred in to her sole name. Mr Lloyd, Flewitt added, had later abandoned the family, leaving Lloyd with no income and she had to claim benefits. Mr Lloyd later persuaded her to move into a property in Princess Drive, Colwyn Bay without telling her he owned the property. This was also later transferred into her name.

Prosecuting, David Potter, said that Lloyd, in addition to the benefits she received, had £400 a month in rent from a woman who lived at Hillside Gardens. Estate agents had valued both properties at nearly £250,000.

Described in court as “a wealthy woman in property” she was the registered keeper of four vehicles, which included two Range Rovers.

In summing up Judge John Rogers said: “For six years you deliberately defrauded the DSS of £150 a week.”

“You are an intelligent woman who has worked for solicitors, estate agents and for the financial arm of a national bank.”

“I am satisfied that you are a greedy and dishonest woman.”

The day following sentencing, Lloyd handed a cheque for nearly £46,000 to the court to repay the overpayment in full.
______________________

Your Right To Know Widened - Freedom Of Information List Extended

Twenty nine public bodies have been added to the list of authorities covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, by an order in parliament.

A wide range of public authorities are already covered by the Act but more can be added at any time. The government have indicated that they intend to lay similar orders before Parliament annually, to ensure the coverage of the Freedom of Information Act is kept up to date.

Yvette Cooper, Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department with a lead role on FOI, said:

"I am pleased that we are increasing the number of public bodies that will be required to become more open and accountable under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This Order represents a further step in opening up information to members of the public and
demonstrates the Government's continuing work in bringing the Freedom of Information Act into force."

The bodies added included the Certification Officer for Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.
____________________

Sentencing for "judges not politicians"

Law lords heard yesterday that individual issues of sentencing should be a matter for courts and not politicians. The claim came in the first day of a review of the home secretary's powers to impose mandatory minimum sentences for the worst offenders.

Edward Fitzgerald, QC, representing Anthony Anderson who was convicted of kicking two victims to death in the course of a theft, reminded the House of Lords that minimum punishment periods for murderers in Scotland and Northern Ireland are set by the judiciary, as they are in England and Wales for juveniles and those sentenced to life imprisonment for other crimes. "What is so special about the English murderer, or the English Home Secretary, to justify a different approach here?" he asked.

If Mr Fitzgerald is successful in his arguments, the Home Secretary could lose the power to decide how long adult murderers in England and Wales should spend in prison.

Seven law lords are sitting instead of the normal five. This is often a sign that this, our highest court, is considering a major change in the law.
____________________

Social Security Advisory Committee Review

The Department for Work and Pensions has issued a consultation paper on the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee.

The Department is inviting comments on the committee, which provides independent advice to the Secretary of State on social security matters. The review will look at the rationale for establishing the organisation, its past performance and its organisational structure. It will also take a forward look incorporating options for change, if appropriate.

Announcing the review, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Andrew Smith said that this was, “normal practice for periodic review of non-departmental public bodies.” He said the independent reviewer would be Professor Hazel Genn of the Faculty of Laws at UCL.

Go to http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/consult/2002/ssa_review/paper.pdf to read the consultation paper.
___________________

Directly to Gaol!

Company director Wahib Al-Bayatti of Gosling Rd, Greenford was sentenced to 16 months in prison yesterday after pleading guilty to two counts of housing benefit fraud. His wife Soundes Salih received 200 hours of community service for her part in a four year fraud which netted the couple £60,000 in fraudulent benefit claims.

The fraud was uncovered by the London Borough of Ealing’s investigation team who discovered that the couple had not declared an income of over £40,000 or the four properties which they owned (on which they also claimed housing benefit). They were also able to prove that, despite his name by deed-poll and telling the authority that they were separated, the couple were still living together.

The investigation team mounted a series of surveillance exercises, and analysed handwriting before police arrested the couple and searched their properties for evidence.

Phil Bailey, head of Ealing Council’s housing benefit investigation team said;

“Benefit fraudsters can’t hide forever – we are serious about rooting them out, and making sure fraudulent overpayments in benefit are ploughed back into services to Ealing residents. This is the latest in a series of successful prosecutions for us, and having identified £1.5 million of fraud in this borough alone last year, we intend to keep working hard to recover as much of this as possible.”

Mr. Al-Bayatti and Mrs. Salih, who are married with five children, have had a Land Registry Caution placed on the house they currently own in Gosling Close, Greenford, West London, which will allow for the recovery of the £60,000 benefits overpayment when the property is sold.
____________________________

New Community Cops to Hit the Beat

At the launch of the Metropolitan Police Service's Police Community Support Officers in London, the home secretary, David Blunkett said that as many as one thousand officers could be on the streets by the end of the year, in an attempt to tackle anti-social behavior and street crime. The home secretary made it clear that these officers will complement the almost 130,000 police officers in England and Wales and not be a substitute for them.

Among the 27 forces receiving funding, six have been selected to pilot detention powers for CSOs, as set out in the Police Reform Act. These are the Metropolitan Police Service, West Yorkshire, Lancashire, Devon and Cornwall, Northamptonshire and Gwent.

With only half the forces in England and Wales having applied for these officers, there are some concerns about commitment to the scheme nationally.
____________________________

New Training Scheme for Civil Service

The home civil service has announced plans to modernise management training with the launch of the "Successful Delivery Skills" programme, which aims to ensure civil servants have the ability to manage major projects.

Cabinet Secretary Sir Andrew Turnbull and Peter Gershon, chief executive of the Office of Government Commerce, launched the scheme as part of the Government’s programme to modernise Whitehall.

The scheme includes a new website, allowing access to on-line booking of training, and an interactive "skills passport" which will record details of an individual's training and development, together with their programme and project management experience.

"The launch of the Successful Delivery Skills programme is the culmination of extensive cooperation between OGC and departments to develop a comprehensive approach to ensure that staff in central civil government have the skills to meet the challenge of government's acquisition activities in the 21st Century," said Peter Gershon.

"This is an extensive programme designed to drive forward real improvements in the delivery of public sector project delivery."
_____________________________

Wrongful Dismissal – Council to Appeal

Councillors’ of Flintshire Council have decided to appeal against a decision that one of their own auditors was wrongfully dismissed. The appeal will cost the taxpayer thousands.

Critics have accused the council of squandering taxpayer’s money in an attempt to protect the reputations of senior figures within the authority. But, council leader Alex Alderidge said the employment tribunals’ decision that the auditor was wrongfully dismissed would set a dangerous precedent for other employees embarking on the same course of action.

Councillor Alderidge told a meeting, “ I have no desire to unnecessarily protract this matter but I cannot in all honesty ignore the clear legal guidance and advice that is before the council.”

The case centres on Andrew Smith, following a fraud investigation into the Housing Benefit section, which result in a member of staff receiving a prison sentence; Mr Sutton claimed that he was denied access to documents that would allow him to conduct a full investigation.

An employment tribunal decided Mr Sutton was constructively dismissed after he complained about being denied access to documents.
_________________________________

All Change for Housing Benefits

The work and pensions secretary, Andrew Smith, is due to announce a major change to the Housing Benefits system when he presents the government’s latest reforms to the welfare state.

In a departure from the current position, the government plans to link payments to the size of a claimant’s family and the average rent for the area. At present payments of Housing Benefit cover the whole of the rental amount but this is set to change in a pilot scheme across the country.

The initial impact of the changes to the scheme, which are to be trialled on private sector rentals, is likely to be a removal of the need to refer rents to the rent officer service. Ministers say that they do not expect any losers from the scheme, although tenants’ groups have expressed concerns that claimants will be forced to move to smaller properties in an attempt to cut costs.

At the party conference, Mr. Smith said that he wanted to reform housing benefit to increase tenant choice whilst taking steps that would reduce the endless form filling and help to prevent fraud.

Reform of housing benefit has been a government aim since they came to power but, as yet, effective methods seem to have eluded the powers that be – as they have been either too costly or have had a negative impact on claimants. The audit commission recently published a damning report on housing benefit citing very long delays in payments by a scheme blighted by massive error and abuse.

Ministers are claiming that by paying rent direct by tenants to landlords this will reduce the risk of fraud. The new scheme is also planned to reduce the upward trend in rental values of property.

Until details of the plan are announced, it is difficult to estimate the effect on Local Authorities, who administer Housing Benefits.
_________________________________

Caught Working in Brother’s Name

Kevin O’Brien, of Whippendell Road, Watford has been sentenced to nine months by Luton Crown Court.

O’Brien dishonestly claimed almost £20,000 in Income Support over a three year period whilst working a 47-and-a-half-hour week for a building firm.

Robert Whittaker, O’Brien’s Barrister, said that he was legally claiming benefit after a catastrophic accident in 1991. He had been given only a five percent chance of survival. However, he suffers frequent and debilitating epileptic fits and thought he would never work again.

Whittaker went on to say, “He felt like a prisoner in his own home and decided to test the water and see if he could get a job. When he succeeded he did not think that he would be able to hold it down, so delayed informing the Benefit Agency. As it happened he managed to keep the job and realises he should have declared that. He is determined to repay as much as he can. This whole process has had a frightening effect on him.”

O’Brien pleaded guilty to four counts of making false declarations between August 1999 and April this year.

Timothy Little, prosecuting, said O’Brien had signed declarations saying that he was not working when he was employed by Towns-Wadey and Co, a job he had obtained by using his brother’s name and date of birth.

When stopped by investigators in May this year he was reported as saying, “I didn’t think it mattered that much, a lot of people are doing it.”
_____________________________

FBI challenged over cyber-sting

In a criminal case with global implications, the FBI hacked into computers belonging to two Russians, in order to gain evidence against them.

Seattle defence attorney John Lundin is expected to argue that the FBI acted criminally in its attempt to convict his client Vasiliy Gorshkov, when he launches his appeal against conviction.

The case was the first to use, in the FBI's words, "extra-territorial seizure of digital evidence." It is also believed to be the first time a government agency has been formally accused of hacking into a foreign computer network.

The Russians have stated that the FBI did not have the authority to break into a computer system in Russia or to download files. The FBI argues, and a United States judge has agreed, that Russian law does not apply to FBI actions.

If this decision is allowed to stand, it will implicitly authorise cross border hacking by investigators.
___________________________

Fixed Fines for Fouling

Not only are the police introducing fix penalty fines for certain offences but Nottingham City Council is to introduce the use of on the spot fines for dog fouling offences. A fixed penalty of £50.00 will be issued to anyone who is witnessed by a dog warden allowing their dog to foul a public place; however the owner of the offending dog must provide proof of identity and remove the offending faeces.

The new system came into operation from the 3^rd September 2002 and does not replace the offence under the Dogs Act 1996, but is an alternative to prosecution at court. Under the Act an owner can be fined up to £1000 for the offence but in reality this never happens and the courts do not award full costs. In view of this the Council have taken the new approach to the problem in order to allow for their officers to get on with their work rather than to spend hours at court for minimal punishment to be issued.

Persistent offenders and repeat offence cases will still be referred to the courts but the on the spot fines will generally be used to encourage owners to clean up after the dogs.
____________________________

No Smoking Policy

More and more places are operating a No Smoking policy, from the local pub through to the Council offices. But, to be fair, they also allow staff to take a smoking break to deal with their cravings which leads to the question: How often should staff be allowed these breaks and for how long? Lets face it, the non-smokers in the office do not get up and walk out of the building every hour or so just for the fresh air! Can you imagine the response if you told your boss you were popping out for a fresh air break?

Well, over the water in New York a top housing official has paid the price for his smoking breaks. He has just been sacked from his £50,000 a year job after it was discovered that he was taking smoking breaks adding up to 69 minutes.

But this was 69 minutes before the lunch break and this was double the time granted each day for smoking breaks - which is not bad if he worked a five-day week because they were still allowing him two and a half hours each week just to smoke. I expect on top of that were the coffee and lunch breaks - I wonder where he got the time to work?
__________________________

People Smuggling Ring Smashed

A smuggling ring has been smashed which was thought to have brought hundreds of illegal immigrants into the UK from the Indian sub-continent. Five members of the gang, all with British nationality, were arrested in police raids on eight addresses in London, Birmingham and Bedford. A sixth man suspected of being an illegal immigrant was also held.

It is thought that the immigrants smuggled in by the gang paid around £8,000 for their passage. Police described it as a highly sophisticated scam. The money bought fraudulently obtained passports and supported documentation, including stamps and entry and exit visas.

On entry to the UK the immigrants would be able to produce documentation that showed they were on the final leg of a holiday to the Indian sub-continent. Once in the UK the person could then disappear, carrying false identification documents they would be able to make applications for various state benefits.

A police source said, “In some instances it is believed that genuine passports have been bought from UK citizens and then doctored to fit the profile of the immigrant. We also believe this gang may have a stockpile of passports which they alter on demand.”
________________________

The Jury – Carl Ramsdale

A legal dictionary would define a jury as a body of sworn persons summoned to decide questions of fact. But the usual place that we see a jury is in the higher courts and this method of justice can be traced back in to the depths of history. The Magna Carta actually states that no man shall be imprisoned or condemned, but by the lawful judgment of his peers.

So the whole idea of trial by jury sounds really positive and leads us to believe that justice can be fair. An advantage of trial by jury is that the public seem to accept the verdict more easily than if a Judge or Magistrate had passed it. The jury are the public and this is the only way in which the ordinary person can have any input in to the legal system. Surely it is fairer that the case is decided by facts alone presented to the laymen and women that have been selected to sit on the jury.

A trial by jury usually brings about a more clear approach to the legal proceedings because the Judge often has to give explanations. This should remove the veil of legal jargon and allow the decision to be made on facts leading to a correct verdict!

The problem with this jury of twelve fine upstanding members of society is that they are selected at random from the electoral register. They are then summoned to appear and they can offer their reasons for being unsuitable to sit and this is the problem we are suffering, there are too many people declining to sit as members of a jury. Perhaps this is just a thread of apathy running through the system because we are constantly bombarded with press reports of how the system is failing and the pathetic sentences handed down by the courts.

Currently there are reforms in the pipeline regarding sentencing and the jury system with regard to persons who claim an exemption from their duty. Because that is what it is, why give us the right of trial by jury when we will not, or cannot, be bothered to do our part. There are people that should not sit on a jury for obvious reasons, would it be fair to have a jury of twelve police officers. Some might think that is a good idea but it is far from being just. The system needs putting right from the ground up. People argue we live in a democracy and as a result we have the choice whether to vote or subject ourselves to other civil duties such as the jury. This is fine until you are in the dock accused of something that you might not have done and you find the jury could not be bothered to turn up. Would that person still defend their rights or would that person want a jury to sit rather than just having lawyers participating in their court games. We need to encourage active participation in the jury system and it is fine to say that under the reforms certain people will now have to sit on the jury. But the horse to water phrase comes to mind, you can make someone sit on the jury but you cannot make him or her come to the right decision.

There would appear to be no easy answer, by making the system more open and interesting you might just raise the quality of jurors. The way in which the system is now operated agitates and upsets people before they even attend the court. Once at the court they are marshalled from place to place and given a short introduction to their duties in court and their behaviour. Though this does not work all of the time because we often hear of members falling asleep during trials.

If you are summoned to appear on jury service it will usually be for two weeks, if you are unlucky who knows how long you might have to sit. So what about your job? Your employer is expected to stand the loss and to cover lost earnings if they exceed the relevant allowance. The maximum allowance is currently £52.63 a day if your earnings exceed £20,000 per year.

Unfortunately the average juror will hear a mundane case that is argued for days leaving the juror wondering what it is all about. A further problem is how can the level of understanding be gauged for a jury? Some of the members could be completely lost in the proceedings and some lawyers will use this to their advantage. In complex fraud cases defence would manipulate the jury to ensure that the majority of its members were manual workers rather than those who appeared to be use to more complex numerical work. The use of diversionary tactics could lead the jury to a wrong decision. That is not the aim, trial by jury allows them to decide on facts and not which counsel can throw up the biggest smoke screen. It should also be remembered that being a member of a jury could be traumatic. The jury have to decide on the facts of evidence and if it is a murder trial they will hear and see things that they would not normally be subjected to.

Perhaps it is because of the poor publicity that courts receive and the facades of some lawyers that have led to the system beginning to crumble. Also, if the alleged middle classes of society are opting out on a regular basis we are leaving the jury open to abuse. Though who deemed the middle class is essential to justice is a subject of debate. Under the new rules doctors, ministers of religion and lawyers will be eligible to sit on a jury. But as already mentioned a jury of police officers would not be acceptable and will still not happen. Could a jury containing lawyers be an equal problem? They have an extensive knowledge of the legal arguments that are only for the judge to decide and therefore there a risk they could bring them into the debate when the jury are trying to come to a verdict.

It is understandable that the government are concerned by the number of acquittals and that they want to shake up the courts. But forcing people to sit when they have previously been excluded is no different to forcing the previous jurors to sit.

Figures show that justice varies on where you are tried. I would opt for Liverpool, there 64% of persons tried are acquitted, but in Leeds it is only 41%. Could there be a reason for these acquittals and could they be related to the area and the relevant communities. It is good that someone has bothered to research the figures but do they prove anything, they only add weight to the fact the jury system is failing. It also shows inconsistency but I would imagine that is a good sign, because at the end of the day a person is innocent until proven guilty and perhaps in Leeds the evidence is of a higher quality. It would concern me if the results had been the same throughout the country.

So if the reforms are put through we will have the new breed of juror forced into service and there is no guarantee that this will improve matters. My Mother-in-law is retired and spent her two weeks acting as a juror at Lincoln Crown court last summer, during this time she spent a lot of time sitting and waiting. She did not mind because she is retired and lets face it, it was a new experience for her because she was being told to listen to a person’s dark and sinister past. This took gossiping to a totally new level, but the serious side is she had nothing better to do. But what about the person who works as a self-employed builder and how do they deal with their losses. What must be more frustrating is the fact that a lot of time is spent waiting around because of legal arguments and delays or not being called.

My Mother-in-law worked hard and was really interested in what was happening in the courts. Also being of the old school she saw it as her duty to attend and to administer justice, she also wanted to know what happened at court. She sat on two trials both ending in what she described as a let down, the first case the person was acquitted on the instructions of the Judge and the second acquitted because guilt could not be decided beyond reasonable doubt. Although it was disappointing for her that she did not see anyone sent to prison she elected to acquit the defendant because it was right.

That is why with all of our failings that the jury system appears to be suffering, we must still have a jury. Could we use a semi-professional jury and use people like my dear outlaw who was interested in justice or would they become tainted after a few cases. Other arguments are that we should use a professional jury to try certain cases that are intricate or bases on a certain profession. For example having a jury of accountants for serious fraud cases and this would negate the need to explain to the lay juror all about accountancy and procedures. Because to refer back to the Magna Carta it refers to PEERS and surely in these cases the professional could be tried by fellow professionals.

We already rely upon the decisions of the District Court Judge (Criminal) to try cases without a jury and are in reality more powerful than a Judge. So why not consider extending this to the higher courts but in relation to specific specialist cases.

I hope the idea of the changes is not purely to increase conviction rates because that is not in the interests of justice. But are there any benefits to sitting on a jury, I cannot think of any other than that is the system we have come to accept and someone has to do it and for a while at least, it won’t be me.
-----------------------------

Widow Disgusted by Sentence

Former Redditch Mayor Madge Tillsley has hit out at the Community Sentence imposed on a former auxiliary nurse at the Alexandra Hospital.

A six-month fraud investigation conducted by police uncovered an £80,000 fraud involving the use of personal details from 60 victims, many of them elderly.

Patricia Wells an auxiliary nurse at the hospital would record the details of people from the admissions book and then pass them to either her ex-husband Brian Wells or associate Karl Harper. The information would then be used to set up false bank accounts using counterfeit documents, addresses were then changed to premises where the group could get access to any documentation sent out. Once the details were changed loans were applied for and used to buy various types of goods.

One of the victims was Mrs Tillsley’s husband. He had been admitted after suffering a stroke, shortly after discovery of the fraud Mr Tillsley suffered a second stroke and died, Mrs Tillsley believes the trauma of the fraud when uncovered contributed to this.

Patricia Wells was found guilty of supplying patients’ names and sentenced to 200 community service. Brian Wells and Karl Harper both pleaded guilty to setting up fraudulent bank accounts and sentenced to three-and-a-half years each.
-----------------------------

Councillor Sentenced for Benefit Fraud

Gul Nawaz (46), a Tory Councillor for Peterborough, and his son Akeel Ahmed (25) have been sentenced to two-months in prison after being convicted of fraud against the City Council.

Both men pleaded guilty to obtaining property by deception following an application to the Housing Benefit department stating that Ahmed was charged £65 per week by his landlord Nawaz, neither had declared that they were related.

The offence took place over a fifteen month period between January 1995 and April 1996 with Housing Benefit paying a total of £3,053.

Nawaz was elected Councillor for Ravensthorpe in May this year and failed to declare that he was under investigation at the time.

William Dalglish, chairman of the magistrate’s bench, in passing the sentence said: “We have considered that you were a man of good character, and that you made a full and frank admission of your guilt when questioned. But this offence occurred consistently over a 15-month period and involved a large sum of money, and you even sent a letter to the council after six months confirming that you were the landlord."

Nawaz showed no emotion as the sentence was being passed. His son was sentenced to a one-month custodial for his part in the fraud and received a further month for defrauding £356.20 from the council in a further scam, carried out between June and September 2001, with his sister, Shabana Khauser (21).

Khauser had previously been fined £100 and ordered to pay £75 costs.
-----------------------------

Joint Operation Results in Custodial Sentences

On 5^th July 2002 at Kingston Crown Court Bernard Mongeau and Youcef Boucenna pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud and were sentenced to 15 and 12 months imprisonment respectively.

Initial investigations by officers from the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea resulted in the case being referred to the Counter-Fraud Investigation Division (Operations) (C-FID) to work with a number of Local Authorities to bring the case to a successfully conclusion. The Local Authorities involved were:

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea;
London Borough of Brent;
London Borough of Ealing;
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham;
London Borough of Merton; and London Borough of Wandsworth

A surveillance operation was conducted by C-FID and on December 18th 2001 two males were arrested known as Bernard Mongeau and Youcef Boucenna. A third male who was thought to be the ringleader of the operation, Mohammed Ziani, escaped and continues to remain at large.

The gang, using false identities and counterfeit documents, had made a number of claims for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Jobseekers Allowance in and around the West London area. In total the fraud cost the public £182,388.

In passing sentence Judge Hucker said;

“This is a benefit fraud that caused a loss to the public of £183,000. I have read all the papers and helpful schedules produced. I am quite satisfied that Ziani was the main organiser and may indeed have been assisted by others. I find neither of you personally benefited by more than £10,000. However you were conspirators in a serious fraud. I take into account, pleas of Guilty and the fact that you have no previous convictions.”

Judge Hucker went on to comment that Ziani would have received in the region of 6 years for his part in the offence.

Judge Hucker was complimentary of the work of the prosecutor and the quality of the evidence presented during the trial. Andrew Hyatt, Senior Investigator at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea said, “It reflects the high standard of work carried out by all the London Boroughs and C-FID in bringing to trial such a complex fraud.”
-----------------------------

Referral from the Grave

Sheena Ormond, 52, of Hornby Street, Birkenhead, has appeared before Wirral Magistrates and pleaded guilty to two counts of making false declarations. A co-defendant Kenneth Kal also admitted two charges of making false statements to enable Ormond to claim benefits.

Ormond was investigated following a newspaper article during Halloween last year. Interviewed as the former licensee of the Worsley Arms, Birkenhead, Ormond and Kal spoke about creepy incidents, strange smells and voices saying goodnight.

During 1998 and 2001, Ormond claimed that she was employed as a barmaid at the pub and earned £80 per week. She was paid more than £3,300 during this period in benefits.

Kal, 57, of Southbourne Road, Wallasey, was licensee prior to Ormond and completed false earnings certificates. He has since resumed his role as landlord.

Kenneth Abraham, Prosecuting, said: “Fraud Investigators established that Mrs Ormond had been the owner of the pub since 1998. Although she told the benefit office she worked for Kal, the reality was that he worked for her.”

Investigators have been unable to establish exactly what her true earnings were.

Defending, Sir Quentin Neal, said: “Originally Mr Kal was the landlord but he was unable to carry on, so Mrs Ormond took over. But whatever name the documents of the pub are in, it was Kal who runs the business.”

“Ormond stands by the income figures which were given to the authorities in which case she would receive the benefits anyway.”

Ormond, who is currently serving a 12-month community rehabilitation order for an unrelated offence, was fined £250 for each charge plus £175 costs.

Kal was also fined £250 for charge plus £175 costs.

-----------------------------

Latest Press Release from LB of Hounslow

-----------------------------