[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Quintana v Department of Work and Pensions [2008] EWHC 813 (Admin) (13 February 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/813.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 813 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		13th February 2007

1. 1. LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: The applicant, Mr Quintana, was convicted at the North Avon Magistrates' Court on 22nd December 2004 of four charges of dishonestly failing promptly to notify the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the prescribed manner of a change of circumstances that he knew would affect his entitlement to job seekers allowance; It was said that he failed to inform the Secretary of State that he had capital assets in excess of the permitted amount, contrary to section 111A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The offences spanned dates between January 2002 and May 2003. Mr Quintana appealed his convictions to the Bristol Crown Court.
2. 2. There were three hearings prior to the appeal being heard. On 29th April 2005, Mr Quintana, having recently dispensed with the services of his solicitors, appeared in person and the matter was adjourned. On 1st July 2005 he again appeared in person. On that occasion he objected to his appeal proceeding with only one lay justice and the matter was adjourned again. On 7th September 2005 he appeared with the benefit of counsel representing him, but counsel had to withdraw as a result of professional embarrassment. The matter was adjourned again. It was then on 14th October 2005 that the appeal was finally heard by HHJ Darwall-Smith and two justices. Again, the applicant appeared in person. At that time he did not argue any violation of his human rights, take any point on the delay or the form of the charges.
3. 3. He has argued his appeal on the basis that funds, which the Secretary of State maintained should have been declared, formed a pension scheme and therefore he did not need to declare them. Mr Quintana informed us that in the past he consulted the Department about his funds which were in a closed account upon which interest accrued each year. He named two people employed by the Secretary of State who he said advised him that he did not need to declare these funds. However, those two people were called as witnesses by the Secretary of State at the appeal hearing and they denied they had ever advised Mr Quintana that these funds did not have to be declared. Their evidence was accepted by the Crown Court and Mr Quintana's evidence on this issue was rejected.
4. 4. The Crown Court found the following facts: that at the relevant times the applicant had capital in excess of the permitted limit; that the sums in his account grew each year by virtue of the interest accruing; that the applicant did not notify promptly or at all the Department of Works and Pensions of this; that these monies did not fall to the excluded from consideration under the provisions of regulation 108(2) and schedule 8 of the Job Seekers Regulations 1996 and, in particular, these were not funds held under a personal pension scheme (see paragraph 29 of schedule 8); that neither Christopher Delaney nor Thelma Gibbs, the two witnesses to whom I have referred, ever told the applicant that he did not have to declare these monies; that his failure to notify the Department of his true capital position was dishonest and calculated to deceive the Department.
5. 5. HHJ Darwall-Smith was invited to state a case. This he failed to do. Initially, he signed the document prepared by Mr Quintana headed "Case Stated". I am not sure for my part what that signature was meant to signify. However, eventually, when pressed by the Administrative Court and Collins J, the judge provided a document headed "Case Stated" in which he said that the applicant had failed to identify any point of law and therefore he was unable to state a case. This Collins J, rightly in my view, decided to treat as a refusal to state a case. On the papers, Collins J refused Mr Quintana permission to bring proceedings by way of judicial review. Mr Quintana has renewed that application for permission.
6. 6. In the documents put before us, which I shall attempt to summarise as best I can, Mr Quintana has put forward a number of grounds. First, he claimed that the Crown Court failed to examine, amend or dispose of the charges against him appropriately. Second, he claimed that the Secretary of State was responsible for delay which breached his rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Third, he complained of the fact that his conviction had been upheld in the Crown Court which denied him his right to defend himself. He was denied a fair trial, again in breach of Article 6. Fourth, he brought to our attention the fact that there was a delay of something over a year between the time of his interview and his trial. He submitted such delay was inexcusable. Fifth, he argued that the charges as eventually brought against him did not reflect the matters put to him in interview. Sixth, he referred the court to the fact that the Department of Work and Pensions had issued an order of recovery of alleged overpayment of job seekers allowance and this they had done before the court hearing. This, he argued, was a "pre-determination" of the case against him in breach of his rights.
7. 7. He also argued that it was wrong for the Department to put the fact of the recovery order before the court and it wrongly prejudiced the court against him. He wishes that recovery order to be quashed. He argued it was incumbent upon the Crown Court judge and the lay justices to investigate the circumstances in which the recovery process had been carried out. He argued that the way in which the Department had behaved indicated an abuse of the process of the court. Seventh, he argued that too many charges have been brought against him. He said in his written submissions that the charges that were brought were "misjoined and duplicitous". He said that they referred to "capital assets" and capital assets are not, he argued, savings, money or capital within the regulations. Eighth, he argued the Secretary of State could not establish any "loss of public funds". He said that any payments to him had to be proved strictly and this the Department had failed to do. We note, however, from the "case stated" that the applicant accepted at court that the payments of job seekers allowance had been made during the relevant period. Ninth, he referred to the way in which the matter had been conducted and the fact that no old claim forms had been produced. He argued that, had the older documents been available, they would have established the case as he argued it before us. He repeated that the charges against him were flawed.
8. 8. He next objected to the Crown Court's findings. He described the failures of the Crown Court judge as "an excess of jurisdiction" and he objected to the fact that the Secretary of State called at the hearing of the appeal four witnesses. This, he said, "elongated" the appeal hearing. He said it created a serious imbalance of time granted to each side and he was unable to make important submissions. When I questioned Mr Quintana about this aspect of his submissions, it appeared to amount to an attack simply upon the court's decision for the sake of clarity to hear from the lawyer representing the Secretary of State before hearing Mr Quintana. He was allowed to give evidence and he was allowed to make submissions at the end of the appeal. His argument, therefore, appeared to be that he did not commence the appeal process with his own submissions and he should have done. Finally, in his written submissions, Mr Quintana described the Secretary of State as a "vexatious litigant".
9. 9. In the time available, I have done my best to summarise the arguments Mr Quintana wishes to put before the Administrative Court. The fact is, with no disrespect intended to Mr Quintana, they simply do not make any sense. The applicant was charged with failing dishonestly to notify the Secretary of State of a change of circumstances which he knew would affect his entitlement to job seekers allowance, namely he had capital assets in excess of the permitted amount. The Crown Court considered each aspect of those charges. They heard the evidence of Mr Quintana and they heard the evidence of the Secretary of State's witnesses. Plainly, the Crown Court has accepted the evidence as called by the Secretary of State and rejected Mr Quintana's evidence. There is nothing that Mr Quintana has been able to put before us, either in writing or orally this morning, that persuades me that he was not afforded a full opportunity to present his case. Therefore, for my part, I can see no basis for attacking the findings on the facts as made by the Bristol Crown Court. I do understand that Mr Quintana, and no doubt Mrs Quintana, who has accompanied him this morning, feel very aggrieved that he has been convicted and he protests his innocence vociferously.
10. 10. I have no reason to doubt that these convictions have had a great impact upon his life and I understand his feelings about the matter. Unfortunately for him, this court has no power to step in where a Crown Court has heard evidence and made findings that somebody has acted dishonestly simply because that person disagrees with the result. This court can only act on a matter of law and none has been identified here. No provisions of Article 6 or elsewhere have been breached. In fact, there is no provision in English jurisprudence, or indeed in European jurisprudence to my knowledge, that allows or insists upon a second appeal on the facts, which in my judgment is exactly what the proposed application would be. So, as far as I am concerned, this application for those reasons must be refused and that is the end of this matter.
11. 11. MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES: I agree.
12. 12. LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I am sorry, Mr Quintana.
13. 13. MR QUINTANA: Excuse me, may I ask a question?
14. 14. LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I am sorry. It is over.