Advanced Search

How to use this Legal Guidance

CPS Public Consultations

We want to hear your views about our prosecution policy and so we conduct consultations to help inform our policy making.

Visit the consultations page to view the current and previous consultations

Home » Legal Resources » Legal Guidance » S to U » Sentencing manual » Obtaining Benefit Fraud

False representation to obtain benefit

Date Updated: January 2012

Title: Theft

Offence: False representation to obtain benefit

Legislation: Social Security Administration Act 1992
S111A dishonestly making a false representation
S112 making a representation known to be false

Mode of Trial: S111A either way
S112 summary only

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: S111A 7 years
S112 3 months

Culpability & Harm

  • Offending carried out over a long period
  • Offender acting with others
  • Planning
  • Motivated by greed or desire to live beyond his other means
  • False identities or details
  • False or forged documents
  • Official documents altered or falsified

Aggravating & Mitigating Factors

  • a guilty plea;
  • the amount involved and the length of time over which the defalcations were persisted in (bearing in mind that a large total may in fact represent a very small amount weekly);
  • the circumstances in which the offence began (e.g. there is a plain difference between a legitimate claim which becomes false owing to a change of situation and on the other hand a claim which is false from the very beginning);
  • the use to which the money is put (the provision of household necessities is more venial than spending the money on unnecessary luxury);
  • previous character;
  • matters special to the offender, such as illness, disability, family difficulties, etc.
  • any voluntary repayment of the amounts overpaid.

Relevant Sentencing Council Guideline

Sentencing Guidelines Council Definitive Guideline for Fraud
Convicted on or after 26 Oct 2009

Fraudulent from the outset, professionally planned and either carried out over a significant period or multiple frauds

£500K SP £750K - Start Point (SP): 5 years. Range: 4 - 7 years 

£100-500K SP £300K - Start Point (SP): 4 years. Range: 3 - 5 years 

£20-100K SP £60K - Start Point (SP): 2 years. Range: 18 months - 3 years  

Fraudulent from the outset, and either fraud carried out over a significant period of time or multiple frauds 

£500K SP £750K - Start Point (SP): 4 years. Range: 3 - 7 years 

£100-500K SP £300K - Start Point (SP): 3 years. Range: 2 - 4 years 

£20-100K SP £60K - Start Point (SP): 15 months. Range: 18 months - 3 years 

£5-20K SP £20K - Start Point (SP): 12 weeks. Range: CO (High) - 12 months 

Less £5K - Start Point (SP): CO (High). Range CO (Low) - 6 weeks

Not Fraudulent from the outset, and either fraud carried out over a significant period of time or multiple frauds 

£500K SP £750K - Start Point (SP): 3 years. Range: 2 - 6 years 

£100-500K SP £300K - Start Point (SP): 2 years. Range: 12 months - 3 years 

£20-100K SP £60K - Start Point (SP): 36 weeks. Range: 12 weeks - 18 months 

£5-20K SP £20K - Start Point (SP): 6 weeks. Range: CO (Med) - 26 weeks 

Less £5K - Start Point (SP): CO (Med). Range: Fine - CO (High)

Single fraudulent transaction fraudulent from the outset   

£20-100K SP £60K - Start Point (SP): 26 weeks. Range: 6 weeks - 12 months 

£5-20K SP £20K - Start Point (SP): CO (High). Range: Fine - 18 weeks 

Less £5K - Start Point (SP): CO (Low). Range: Fine - CO (Med)

Single fraudulent transaction not fraudulent from the outset   

£20-100K SP £60K - Start Point (SP): 12 weeks. Range: CO (Med) - 36 weeks 

£5-20K SP £20K - Start Point (SP): CO (Med). Range: Fine - 6 weeks 

Less £5K - Start Point (SP): Fine. Range: Fine - CO (Low)

Relevant Sentencing Guidelines

R -V- LYLA TURNER [2011]  2 Cr. App. R.(S.) 18 - 14 months upheld  where appellant obtained £33,952. Described as a case of "dishonest greed, by a woman with a sound financial base, making repeated gratuitous false declarations". Held that sentencing Judge entitled to depart from guidelines - guidelines were guidelines; they were not to be analysed in minute detail. They might provide a starting point for a "standard case" but where other features which could not be ignored, it was open to the Judge to use a different starting point and to sentence outside what was said to be range.  

Relevant Sentencing Case Law (pre SGC)

R v STEWART AND OTHERS [1987] 9 Cr.App.R.(S.) 115

Professional fraudsters who target the benefit system who operate carefully organised frauds on a large scale in which considerable sums of money are obtained, often by means of frequent changes of name or address or of forged or stolen documents. The length of the custodial sentence will depend in the first instance on the scope of the fraud. 2 and a half years imprisonment and upwards.

Others cases consider:  

  • a guilty plea;
  • the amount involved and the length of time over which the defalcations were persisted in (bearing in mind that a large total may in fact represent a very small amount weekly);
  • the circumstances in which the offence began (e.g. there is a plain difference between a legitimate claim which becomes false owing to a change of situation and on the other hand a claim which is false from the very beginning);
  • the use to which the money is put (the provision of household necessities is more venial than spending the money on unnecessary luxury);
  • previous character;
  • Matters special to the offender, such as illness, disability, family difficulties, etc.
  • Any voluntary repayment of the amounts overpaid.

If immediate imprisonment is necessary, a short term of up to about nine or 12 months will usually be sufficient in a contested case where the overpayment is less than, say £10,000.

(The case of GRAHAM, WHATLEY [2005] 1 CR.APP.R.(S) 115 revises the starting amount in Stewart and decides that that short terms of up to about 9 to 12 months would usually be sufficient in contested cases where the overpayment was less than £20,000. Sentences would depend on an almost infinite variety of factors. Serious aggravating factors, such as the obtaining of large sums, frauds persisted in over lengthy periods, claims for benefit that were fraudulent from the inception, sophisticated fraud involving the use of false and/or multiple identities, and the maintenance of an extravagant lifestyle over the period in question, would be likely to result in substantial periods of imprisonment.)

R v GRAHAM, R v WHATLEY [2005] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 110
Graham pleaded guilty to 10 offences of benefit fraud, and asked the court to take a further 471 offences into consideration and was committed for sentence 2 and a half years. During a ten year period the defendant obtained £50K. Whatley convicted on 13 counts of benefit fraud Obtained £90K from claiming whilst working. 30 months.

  1. If Stewart is to continue to apply, the figure of £10,000 should be updated for inflation.
  2. There will be cases in which a sentence should properly reflect an element of deterrence.
  3. The decisions to which we have been referred are broadly consistent with Stewart. In Armour and Sherlock Newman J suggested that the increasing prevalence of such offences had led to a more serious view of such offences being taken by the courts, but the heavier sentences that have been imposed in some cases are readily explicable by reference to aggravating features and to an element of deterrence.
  4. In the light of our conclusion at 3 and taking account of the guidelines for comparable offences and of the decisions of the Court in Kefford and Mills, we do not consider that the Stewart guidelines require a revision, save in relation to the effect of inflation.
  5. Accordingly, we consider that where imprisonment is necessary, short terms of up to about nine to 12 months will usually be sufficient in a contested case where the over payment is less than £20,000.

Aggravating features:

  • obtaining of large sums,
  • frauds persisted in over length periods,
  • claims for benefit that are fraudulent from their inception,
  • sophisticated fraud involving the use of false and/or multiple identities,
  • the maintenance of an extravagant lifestyle over the periods in question

Relevant Sentencing Case Law

Large scale / sophisticated fraud:

R v Nwoga and others [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 1
B6-33F17
Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud. The defendants obtained £300K over a 21 month period using details obtained from the DSS computer. Well organised, carefully prepared and carefully executed plot, to secure very large sums of money. It was designed to plunder this country's benefit system. Tariff 3 and a half - 4 years on a plea, 6 years on a fight.

R v Adewuyi [1997] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 254
B6-33F16
Convicted of 10 offences of theft and five of obtaining services by deception. The defendant obtained £100K over a ten year period using different names. 4 years.

R v Armour and Sherlock [1997] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 240
B6-33F19
Pleaded guilty to conspiring to obtaining by deception. The defendants were involved in a conspiracy using stolen benefit books and obtained £1300 and £800. Increasing prevalence of this type of offence and a degree of organization. 18 months.

R v Cheryl Eleanor Evans [2000] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 144
Pleaded guilty to four counts on an indictment containing 24 counts and was convicted on the remaining counts. The defendant claimed housing benefit in respect of premises where she lived, when in fact the house was the property of the local council. Claims were also made in false names, supported by false details of a fictitious landlord, in respect of several further addresses. 2 years.

Others:

R v Olusoji [1994] 15 Cr.App.R.(S.) 356
B6-33F14
Pleaded guilty to six counts of obtaining by deception. The defendant obtained student grants from various local authorities by using false identities supported by false documents. He employed 29 different aliases, obtained a total of about £20,700, and attempted to obtain a further £50,000 to finance a gambling habit. 3 years.

R v WEILD [1994] 15 Cr.App.R.(S.) 685
Pleaded guilty to eight counts of obtaining by deception and asked for 283 similar offences to be taken into consideration. The defendant obtained £15K by not disclosing assets and cohabitating and working. 15 months.

R v OYEDIRAN [1997] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 277
Pleaded guilty to five counts of false accounting and asked for 68 similar offences to be taken into consideration. The defendant obtained £18K over a 3 year period without disclosing a student grant and employment. 18 months.

R v ELLISON [1998] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 382
Pleaded guilty to five counts of obtaining by deception and asked for 88 other offences to be taken into consideration. Overpaid £10K over a period of years claiming whilst working. 10 months.

R v BENDRIS [2000] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 183
Pleaded guilty to conspiracy and to obtaining by deception. Over a four year period the defendant received £10K by claiming in false names. False passports used. 10 months.

R v HALE [2002] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 49 (at 205); [2001] EWCA Crim. 1329
Pleaded guilty to 11 counts of obtaining property by deception and one count of theft. He asked for 68 offences to be taken into consideration. The defendant worked at a care home and encashed pension books belonging to former residents to finance his drug habit. Breach of trust. 2 years.

Ancillary Orders:

  • Restitution
  • Compensation

Consider Also:

  • POCA

Top of page

Return to Sentencing manual