REGINA v Bendris

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9th June 1999, at Manchester Crown Court, the Appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to obtain property by deception related to fraudulent claims for Income Support and Job Seekers allowance between April 1994 and September 1998. The fraudulent claim involved submitting false documentation, including a forged passport with the Appellant's photograph, to support claims for benefits based on a fictitious identity. The Appellant's brother, also involved in the conspiracy, pleaded guilty to two counts and received a longer sentence. The Appellant was sentenced on 10th September 1999 to 15 months' imprisonment by His Honour Judge Henshell. The Appellant appealed against this sentence with leave of the Single Judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 15 months' imprisonment imposed on the Appellant for conspiracy to obtain property by deception was excessive.
2. What is the appropriate sentencing benchmark for social security fraud cases involving similar periods of offending and amounts obtained.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence of 15 months was excessive given the facts of the case.
• The Appellant's counsel relied on the precedent set in R v Ellison (1998), where a similar sentence was reduced from 15 months to 10 months for comparable fraud.
• The Appellant had no prior convictions except a recent non-custodial conviction for obtaining property by deception.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered the period of the Appellant's involvement in the conspiracy (approximately four years) and the amount obtained (just over £10,000). The Court compared these facts with the Appellant's brother's longer involvement and larger sum obtained, which resulted in a longer sentence. The Court acknowledged the Appellant's lack of prior convictions except for a recent non-custodial conviction. The key legal reasoning centered on the Court's reliance on the authority of R v Ellison, which had reduced a similar sentence from 15 to 10 months. The Court noted that although it may be necessary in the future to reconsider sentencing levels in light of increasing social security fraud, for the present appeal it was appropriate to follow Ellison. The Court found the original 15-month sentence excessive and substituted it with a 10-month sentence. It also noted that the sentencing judge did not have the benefit of the Ellison authority at the time of sentencing.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is ALLOWED IN PART. The Court quashed the original sentence of 15 months' imprisonment and substituted a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment.

The direct effect is a reduction in the Appellant's custodial sentence. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming the application of R v Ellison as a sentencing benchmark in similar social security fraud cases.