This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
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.
.svg){kind=small}