Talk:Michael Trend

Change - "Fraudulent expenses claim" to "Improper expenses claim"
I have changed "Fraudulent expenses claim" to "Improper expenses claim" because in the report which is the basis of this section heading, the conclusions reached were that the member was "negligent" and that he acted in an "improper" manner because he should have realized that his claim was not well founded under the applicable rules. That does not support the conclusion that he acted in a "fraudulent" manner or even a "dishonest" one. It seems that in English criminal law, a criminal offence would have been committed in a case such as this only if the person making the expenses claim did not care whether he or she was entitled to the payment, but merely whether he or she could "get away with" the claim. See R v Staines (1974) 60 Cr. App. R. 160. All that the report cited decided was that Mr Trend should have realized that his claim was not well founded and that he was negligent in making the claim. I don't think that is strong enough to support the statement that he made a fraudulent or dishonest claim.

Todowd (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It still says "fraudulent". 86.158.148.12 (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)