Skip to main content

Denis MacShane imprisoned for fraud

Denis MacShane behind bars
MacShane behind bars
Former MP and Government Minister, Denis MacShane has today been sentenced to six-months imprisonment for fraudulently claiming £13,000 in MPs expenses to which he was not entitled.

This sort of thing really gets on my nerves.

Mr MacShane will no doubt have been sentenced in accordance with the guidance for fraud committed by professionals.  The leading case is R. v Chaytor [2011] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 114 who you may not be surprised to hear was an MP who made up expense claims.  He received an 18-month prison sentence for stealing £50,000 from the taxpayer following a guilty plea.

These cases annoy me when we compare them to the sentences handed out to benefit fraudsters.  The leading case on benefit fraud is R. v Graham , R. v Whatley [2005] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 115 which considered two unconnected offenders together.  The facts are not terribly important save that Graham's fraud was false from the start where as Whatley initially made a genuine claim that later became false due to a change in circumstances.  The appeal court considered a whole host of authorities before reaching the conclusion that where a person fraudulently over claims less than £20,000 in benefits they should face between nine and twelve-months imprisonment.  Admittedly the Magistrates' Court sentenceing guidelines are far less strict, although they conflate a number of offences and do not seem to sit well with Graham and Whatley.

Benefit frauds are typically very small amounts of money over-claimed for very long periods of time to the point where the total amount paid out can be very high.  Most benefit fraudsters I've dealt with make a genuine application and are entitled to the benefit at the start but then their circumstances change and they become entitled to a smaller amount of benefit (sometime they are no longer entitled at all but mostly they remain entitled to something).  I've yet to meet a benefit fraudster living a luxurious life-style off the back of their fraud.  The benefit frauds involving multiple false claims using fake identities are, in my experience, relatively rare.

The MPs who made fraudulent claims typically seem to have obtained large amounts of cash in short periods of time in situations where a great deal of trust has been placed in the individual.  In MacShane's case the Independent newspaper reports that he (or somebody working for him) faked the signature of the manager of the European Policy Institute multiple times on receipts.  The implication of this is that the receipts themselves must be forgeries (in so far as they are not genuine receipts) else why would he have required a fake signature?

The obtaining of and/or faking of receipts and signatures indicates a high degree of planning went into this offence.  If Mr MacShane did not forge the signatures himself then the involvement of others raises the level of planning.  Further, Mr MacShane was in positions of responsibility and trust as an MP, a Minister and head of the European Policy Institute.  By committing these offences he breached the trust of his electorate, the Prime Minister and those at the EPI.

For those reasons, I consider the offences committed by MPs to be far more serious than those committed by the overwhelming majority of benefit fraudsters and it is why I think that the sentence of six-months imprisonment is very lenient.


  1. Plate sin with gold, the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks. Arm it in rags, a Pygmy's straw doth pierce it. True in 1600, true now.

  2. Very lenient and already his chums are already circling the wagons in the Liberal press for redemption when he's released.

  3. Perhaps he will do a 'Pryce' and refuse to accept they were criminals and write a book about how prison doesn't work!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…