Disgraced former MP David Chaytor was today jailed for 18 months, after admitting to three charges of false accounting on his expenses, totalling over £20,000. He had faced a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment, but his guilty plea was taken into account.
The former Labour MP for Bury North had made claims for renting two properties which were owned by him and his mother, and for IT consultancy for which he was never charged. According to the Daily Telegraph, Chaytor had spread more than £91,100 of expenses claims across five different properties in five years, ‘flipping’ the designation of his second home six times.
Together with former Labour colleagues Jim Devine and Elliot Morley, Chaytor had argued at the Court of Appeal that only Parliament could hear the case, invoking the 300-year-old immunity of parliamentary privilege. After a Court of Appeal ruling that parliamentary privilege did not apply in the case of the alleged fraudulent claiming of expenses, Chaytor had been due to be the first MP to stand trial over expenses but changed his plea just days beforehand.
Devine and Morley, sitting Labour MP Eric Illsley and the former Conservative peers Lord Hanningfield and Lord Taylor of Warwick are all due to face separate, unconnected trials involving their expenses later this year.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Liverpool's electricity procurement scandal drags on with no resolution
Royal Navy orders investigation into nuclear submarine 'repaired with glue'
My tweets
Government rhetoric on small boat crossings debunked
Dundee Cancer Support Network
The Waldorf and Statler of Gateshead Council
Guy
Zoe Hollowood
David Evans
Martin
Anthony Acton
29 Comments
Good to see justice being done at last.
However these few cases should not be seen as token payment cases to the public, for the shameful behaviour of many of the other MP’s from all 3 of the main parties, who have also indulged in similar behaviour.
There are still cases, that are held by the police and the CPS, which have not even been decided upon on yet, on whether they are going to pursue a prosecution or not.
These cases should be put before the courts in my opinion and asap.
There are also some expenses, that are still being investigated by the parliamentary standards authority, and should in my view, be ruled on asap, and then possibly be investigated by the CPS.
We also should not forget, that the Audit Office has still not signed off expenses relating to 2009, As there are several Millions Pounds in Question, that MP’s are still failing to provide evidence for.
Can’t say I’m overly sympathetic. It’s devine justice… boom, boom!
Question is, Was 18 months long enough?
The crime, carried a maximum sentence of 7 years. The guilty plea gives a 1/3 reduction in sentence, therefore the Judge could have sentenced him to four and half years, rather than the 18 months.
Chaytor, along with the others, took their cases to the supreme courts, at the expense of legal aid and the public purse, This in my opinion should also be reflected in sentencing.
Good to see Chayter got what he deserved.
Talking of abuse of tax payers’ money when will we hear the adjudication on David ‘Born to be Public Sector Axeman’ Laws ? Has the against -the-rules claiming he did been quietly forgotten ?
Wasn’t it about £40,000 ?
Matt – read the sentencing guidelines for false accounting here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/false_accounting/
The amount involved is the most important factor. In this case it was in the £17,500 to £100,000 bracket (but clearly towards the lower end). The starting sentence for such a crime is between 2 and 3 years. The Judge started off with 2 years (other mitigating and aggravating factors presumably balancing out), then applied a discount for a guilty plea.
yes but the maximum sentence is 7 years as I said in my post.
Aggravating factors can include
The amount involved
The use to which money was put (spending on luxuries more venal than on necessities)
Breach of position trust
Extent of Gain – Intended and Actual
The period over which and the persistence with which the fraud was carried out.
considering the offence carried all these aggravating factors, the sentence could have been towards the higher end of the scale. IMO
Not long enough, but I guess in cases like this the message is most important…….
I agree with Matt. Chaytor and others used a variety of wheezes to try to get off, making his guilty plea less one of nobility than finally admitting defeat. Note also that he used a local volunteer for free work, then claimed back on reimbursements.
Morley, Ilsley and Devine must have little cottage pie factories in their underpants just now.
Supposing someone had taken £1bn from charity funds intended for disabled children, and spent it on a yacht full of gin. They couldn’t be sentenced to any more than 7 years in gaol. David Chaytor’s offence was bad, but it wasn’t as bad as that, and if the sentence had been significantly higher than the sentencing guidelines indicated, he would have appealed against sentence and won.
For fraud accounting to £1 million + the sentencing goes up to 10years + not 7 Years.
David Chaytors offence was bad IMO and deserved a harsher sentence. And who is to say he is not going to appeal the sentence he already got, there is nothing stopping him from doing that in the next couple of weeks.
He defrauded money from the public purse, then cost the public purse more money by taking the case to the supreme courts.
His offences are worse in some respect than those committed by private investment companies, he was placed in a position of trust by thousands of members of his constituency.
I think all the MP’s who are convicted of these false accounting offences, should be sentenced harshly.
I also agree with Poppies mum, that we also need to know the adjudication of highly questionable expenses claimed by Mr Laws, The Parliamentary Standards Authority needs to make a ruling, I can see no excuse why they still have not managed to do so after 7 months investigation.
No. David Laws claimed precisely the amount allowed to him by the rules. All he did wrong was to write the wrong reason on the claim form. His departure was about the embarrassment this caused, nothing more.
Readers may wish to peruse the Judge’s sentencing remarks: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/chaytor-sentencing-remarks.pdf
Which make it clear that the prosecution had asked for a starting point (before consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors) of 18 months imprisonment. The Judge decided on a starting point of 2 years imprisonment. In other words, and just to rub it in, the Judge gave a heavier sentence than even the prosecution thought appropriate.
@Andrew Suffield
“No. David Laws claimed precisely the amount allowed to him by the rules. All he did wrong was to write the wrong reason on the claim form. His departure was about the embarrassment this caused, nothing more.”
And yet the rules on claiming expenses for rent clearly states, that you can not claim rent for a property which is owned by a member of your family or a partner.
Mr Laws was in a long term relationship with his partner, for whom he supposedly rented the room from.
The rules could not be clearer really.
To say there is some problems with “interpretation” of the word partner is nonsense really.
Incidentally Mr Laws would have to have provided a tenancy agreement, in order to claim the rental expenses, I am assuming that in the tenancy agreement, there would have been a disclosure, stating that although Mr Laws is paying rent towards the property that is mortgaged, he will not at any point, make a claim on ownership of the property, due to contributing towards the cost of the mortgage.
All mortgage lenders agreements, have these terms and conditions in their contracts, if borrowers are going to sub-let or even have a Lodger, in order to protect their own investment.
Still I am sure the Parliamentary standards must be aware of things like this.
It is still baffling why they are taking so long to make a ruling, If things are as cut and dry as what you seem to think they are, why do you think they have not come to any conclusions yet, 7 months later?
I am surprised to read on a Liberal Democrat website that some people think that Chaytor should have had a longer sentence. The man’s a scoundrel and deserves to be punished, but he’s not violent or any danger to the public, and I thought that your party (and now Ken Clarke) wanted to send fewer people to prison. A very heavy fine and some community service would have been more appropriate in my opinion – and I said the same about Jeffrey Archer, Johathan Aitken and Lester Piggott. Prison should be reserved for violent offenders only.
@Bert Finch
“I am surprised to read on a Liberal Democrat website that some people think that Chaytor should have had a longer sentence”
Not all people posting on here are supporters of Lib Dems or Liberal Democrat Party members.
I voted Liberal Democrat at the last G.E, however that was more to do with my fall out with Charles Clarke more than anything else , However it is fair to say that prior to that, I was always a Labour supporter, and indeed now am a person who is more likely to vote Labour at the next G.E
However that does not stop me criticizing Labour for their mistakes, and wanting justice against Labour MP’s who abused expenses, However I think what is good for 1, is good for all, and many more MP’s should be brought before the courts from all 3 political parties, IMO
Oh dear,
this doesn’t show the ‘system’ to be correcting itself, rather it reinforces the clear truth of the corruption of the political class and highlights the wilful ignorance of a people cowed for way too long by their ready acceptance of it. There should have been many, many more MPs in court for doing things at least as bad as the few put on trial. It’s scandalous that the MPs and their investigators think they can pull the wool over our eyes.
I realise that prosecuting, jailing or prohibiting MPs from involvement in public life would result in a large number of MPs taking a long walk and a large upheaval in public life, but if that’s what it needs then that’s what it needs. Otherwise, a similar thing will occur before too long.
Please tell me this is a piss-take.
Conclusion… white collar criminals should be less likely to do bird.
Still, I assume LibDem supporters are satisfied he retains the vote.
I think David Chaytor should have had a stiffer sentence precisely because one of the aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines is “Breach of position trust”. Corruption is corrosive of the body politic itself, and he should have had the book thrown at him. And as for the notion that he’d shown genuine remorse, I’m flabbergasted – he took his case to the Supreme Court that he was above the law, and quite rightly that Court rejected his case.
@Bert Finch
Posted 8th January 2011 at 1:03 am | Permalink
“I am surprised to read on a Liberal Democrat website that some people think that Chaytor should have had a longer sentence. The man’s a scoundrel and deserves to be punished, but he’s not violent or any danger to the public”
I disagree, Lets not forget, the expenses scandal was happening at the same time, as the now coalition government, accuses Labour of being solely responsible for the budget deficit.
The condems are constantly telling us, that labour over spent, and that was true.
But at the time the government was overspending, MP’s where also guilty of false accounting, Putting in bogus claims for mortgages that no longer existed, claiming rental allowances on properties owned by family members or partners. Claiming expenses for Chocolate bars {Prime Minister} claiming for lavish furnish and fittings, plasma TV’s e.t.c.
Those that are guilty of false of accounting should be made accountable before the courts.
This Government is making savage cuts, especially to welfare claimants, Many hard hit families are really going to be really struggling to put food on the table, because there is no money left in the pot, so please don’t think for 1 moment, that what these MP’s have done are not worthy of the harshest of punishments.
The Right Wing Press, have vilified those on welfare as Scroungers, Osborne has referred to them as so, as has Ian Duncan Smith, Liberal Democrats are in government and have a social responsibility, but they have not have spoken up for those on welfare and those who are sick and disabled, which in my view is aiding and abetting The Tories, disregard towards those on welfare.
So please spare a thought for those that are being hit with benefit cuts, redundancies, losing their homes, Then tell me that those MP’s that are guilty of claiming false expenses for “2nd Homes” e.t.c. should not be punished harshly
Yes, they are completely clear. Where he would not be allowed to claim this as rent, he would be allowed to claim this as paying his share of the interest on the mortgage, and in any event he would be allowed to claim the part of it which is maintenance costs and furnishings. In summary: claiming your half of living costs shared with a partner is allowed, but the Department of Resources wanted this to be drawn up as mortgages and not tenancy.
(It’s not trivial to decide what to do about this because he may still be penalised for the deception, even thought it appears to have been at no cost to the treasury; there are good reasons why these were supposed to be audited in advance by the department)
“Yes, they are completely clear. Where he would not be allowed to claim this as rent, he would be allowed to claim this as paying his share of the interest on the mortgage.”
He would only be able to claim it as his share of the Mortgage, if he was indeed named on the Mortgage Papers.
As I said previously, the rules state, You can not claim rent for property which is owned by a Family Member or your Partner, And I am pretty sure that also includes expenses relating to maintenance costs and furnishings.
David Chaytor Was convicted for False accounting, for claiming rent on a property that was owned by his mother, because that goes against the parliamentary rules.
David Laws claimed rent for a Property, that was owned by his long term partner, which is also against the rules. Which David Laws has admitted to doing so, stating that he did so, as he wanted to keep his sexuality a secret.
The issue is not about what was or is cheaper to the treasury and the Public Purse, The Issue is, Has a Member or Parliament Breeched the rules on claiming allowances, and breeched the trust of the public that voted them into office?
Mr Laws did not resign from Cabinet for any Embarrassment he caused, Why would there be any embarrassment if he had not breeched any rules?
Andrew, were you similarly charitable to the home flippers? All within in the rules…
Alex, Matt et al.
What you don’t seem to get is that David Laws gained no percuniary advantage.
The home-flippers etc did. They flipped in order to GET MORE MONEY.
And a bunch of them were re-elected in May, so the voters were clearly very charitable about it.
Dunno about you, but I think lying to keep your private life secret (but no other advantage), while a lie and rightly being investigated (very slowly), isn’t morally as bad as doing something to line your own pockets.
Lot of almost mob hysteria over Xs, mind: public wound up to the state where they seemed to think MPs shouldn’t be allowed to claim anything at all.
A lot of them took the p—, but within the rules. Claiming for a chocolate bar may be petty, but it wasn’t illegal.
>white collar criminals should be less likely to do bird.
It’s the nature of the offence, not the social status of the offender, that determines sentence. No violence involved.
The victim wasn’t some little old lady and her life savings. And he pleaded guilty, which has (by law) to be taken into account.
Chaytor’s lost his liberty, his career, his standing in society, and is facing huge legal fees. He poses no risk to society and can’t reoffend.
The experience of being processed into the prison system won’t exactly be pleasant.
Seven years, while the max permissable, would be more than some men get for rape.
@Cassie
“Dunno about you, but I think lying to keep your private life secret (but no other advantage), while a lie and rightly being investigated (very slowly), isn’t morally as bad as doing something to line your own pockets”
I simply do not accept this argument. Ok Mr Laws did not want to expose his sexuality publicly, that is his given right and nobody should deny him that right. But that does not explain why Mr Laws had to claim expenses for rent on a 2nd home.
An MP is not required to claim expenses for 2nd home allowances, they do not have to declare why they are NOT claiming expenses, therefore I fail to see where the argument is, that it was done to protect his sexuality.
The simple fact is, there are rules in regards to claiming expenses, which MP’s have to abide by. The same as there are rules, that members of the public have to abide by when claiming Benefits “Declaring Partners”
This Coalition is extremely quick to expose benefit cheats and say that the full arm of the law should be brought against those that are caught. The same rule must apply then to those that work in public office and claim expenses, in my opinion
I never suggested that Chaytor shouldn’t be punished severely, I just don’t believe that prison is the right place for non-violent offenders, and I thought that most Liberal Democrats shared that view. A very heavy fine (plus a lot of community service) might well have been a harsher punishment than what will amount to just a few months of porridge, especially if the accounts of the goings on at the recently damaged Ford Prison are anything to go by!
No it isn’t. Read the thread. The issue is, “Poppie’s mum” alleges that David Laws stole £40,000 of taxpayer money. He did not. David Laws filed an improper claim for the proper amount of money, for the purpose of concealing the nature of his relationship. That’s a very different thing.
(He may be penalised for doing so, but it seems unlikely that he’ll have to repay the entire sum, and there doesn’t appear to be any scope for criminal charges)
I said I thought it would be a gross violation of the rule of law to change the rules on them after the fact and expect repayments.
@Andrew Suffield
You seem to speak, as though you have first knowledge of this particular case.
You say
“David Laws filed an improper claim for the proper amount of money, for the purpose of concealing the nature of his relationship”
And You said Previously in another post
“No. David Laws claimed precisely the amount allowed to him by the rules. All he did wrong was to write the wrong reason on the claim form”
So are you suggesting that Mr Laws, was in fact Named on the mortgage papers as a joint borrower, and so therefore he should have claimed the expenses as a mortgage allowance, rather than a rental allowance? But to conceal his sexuality, he got his partner to draw up a tenancy agreement, and claimed it as a rent?
I think that seems to be what you are suggesting?
Incidentally, I don’t think poppies mum alleged that he stole anything, she was asking for the adjudication on a questionable expenses claim.
That is very different and something she and many others are entitled to ask, and have answers on