England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		Friday, 13 April 2018

This transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

If this transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.

MRS JUSTICE MAY:

1. This is a renewed application by Ms Chung for leave to appeal her conviction on three counts of fraud. Despite being represented at trial she has prepared this appeal herself.
2. Her convictions for fraud followed a trial before Mr Recorder Sallon QC and a jury at Southwark Crown Court in July 2017. The first offence concerned a false representation made on a housing benefit form to the effect that she lived in an address in the London Borough of Brent when in fact she had moved and was now living at an address in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
3. The second offence was related to the first, in that she failed to disclose to the London Borough of Brent that she was in receipt of benefits at the same time from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
4. The third offence of fraud related to an application made by Ms Chung to the London Borough of Brent for a Blue Badge enabling her to make use of disabled parking bays. In the application form submitted to Brent Council she stated that she had never held a Blue Badge before, when in fact she had already been granted one by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
5. Ms Chung was represented by counsel at trial and gave evidence on her own behalf. On count 1 she denied filling out or signing the housing benefit form for the London Borough of Brent. On count 2 her defence was that she had informed Brent that she had moved and she denied receiving any money from them.
6. In relation to the Blue Badge offence she denied completing or signing the application form. In convicting her, the jury plainly disbelieved her account of events.
7. Her grounds of appeal against conviction are as follows. First, a failure to direct the jury as to the two elements of dishonesty deriving from the case of Ghosh. Second, a failure by the Crown to show that she had made any gain. Third, that she was entitled to housing benefit for the indictable period. Fourth, she was also entitled to a Blue Badge and to a Taxicard. Fifth and last, the judge had erred in discharging a juror in the middle of the trial.
8. In dismissing her application for leave the Single Judge dealt succinctly with each of these grounds, giving reasons as follows:

"1. As the judge explained - dishonesty was not the issue in the case. The issue was as to whether you had made the applications and received any benefit as set out in the summing up at page 5F of the transcript...

2. Gain was not a requirement for the proof of guilty, merely the intent to make such again.

3. The fact of entitlement to housing benefit was not in dispute. What was proved was that you simultaneously obtained such benefit to in respect of two different homes.

4. It was accepted that you were entitled to one blue badge. You were not entitled to the second one.

5. It was accepted that you were entitled to a taxi card. Your case was that you had not applied the second card. The jury was entitled to reject that evidence.

6. The discharged juror. This was an unfortunate event of the kind which occasionally arises during trial. It was dealt with carefully and fully by the court after hearing from the juror and from both parties. The juror was discharged on your application. The judge carefully considered the appropriate considerations and authorities and was entitled to proceed as he did."

9. We respectfully agree with each one of these reasons given by the single judge for refusing leave.
10. In renewing her application for leave the applicant has sought to lodge further grounds. We have considered these further grounds which are out of time. There is no merit in any of them. They are essentially assertions of fact which could have been and no doubt were raised at trial for the jury's consideration. The application is dismissed.

Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.

165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY

Tel No: 020 7404 1400

Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk