Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to convictions for unlawful subletting of social housing

A former senior housing officer at a local authority and her sister have lost an appeal over their convictions for unlawfully subletting their housing association properties.

In Adedeji & Anor v R [2019] EWCA Crim 804 [the judgment for which was published on Bailii this week] Katheryn Adedeji ("K"), a senior housing officer, and her sister Blessing Adedeji ("B") were convicted on 23rd January 2017 at the Central Criminal Court of unlawfully subletting a dwelling house contrary to 2(2) Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013.

In 1998 K was granted a tenancy of a property in Granville Square, WC1, which is owned by Circle Housing. She subsequently purchased other properties including one at Dickson Road in London for £325,000.

In 2008 B was granted a tenancy of a flat at Glasshouse Fields, E1, owned by Newlon Housing Association.

In late January, early February 2014 K made an application for a mutual exchange of properties with her sister, B. The application was, apparently, approved in principle in April 2014 but due to an administrative error never completed.

Following an anonymous complaint in July 2015 an investigation was launched. Later that year observations indicated that K was living at Dickson Road, not 29 Granville Square.

The investigation subsequently found that B had been the account holder for the supply of gas and electricity at 29 Granville Square since September 2014. Text messages meanwhile indicated that K had been receiving rental payments from B, who in turn appeared to have been collecting rent from a third-party tenant. Analysis of bank accounts indicated regular transfers to K from B, who also received regular cash deposits.

After her arrest, K admitted that following her acquisition of 44 Dickson Road she had sublet 29 Granville Square to her sister. She had continued to pay the rent to Circle Housing and her sister had in turn made cash payments or transfers to her. She also admitted that shortly after moving out of 29 Granville Square she had signed a tenancy audit document declaring that she was still living there on a permanent basis.

When B was arrested, she made no comment to all questions asked.

On the same day officers discovered a "Mr Lawal" living at Glasshouse Fields. He confirmed that he had been living at the address since December 2014, paying £200 rent in cash every two weeks to B. An inspection of the property indicated that B was not living at that address.

On 18th March 2016 B was re-interviewed, again with a solicitor. Upon this occasion she submitted a prepared statement to the effect that money paid into her bank account were from her sister Francesca, members of her family or her brother-in-law Wahid, and were not, therefore, rental payments. Thereafter she made no comment in response to all questions posed to her.

At the trial the nub of the defence case for both K and B was a denial that they had ceased to occupy the properties as their principal place of residence. It followed that they could not be guilty of unlawfully subletting those premises.

K claimed that she had merely moved some of her belongings to Dickson Road, while B said she merely had an informal arrangement with her sister which did not amount to a sub-tenancy. She denied that she had moved into the property, and said she was having difficulty persuading her landlord to resolve problems with her flat at Glasshouse Fields.

The central issue for the jury was whether the properties rented to the applicants had ceased to be their principal place of residence whether they had sub-let the whole of each property or whether other people staying in those properties were in fact lodgers or guests and whether they had acted dishonestly. The jury found both defendants "guilty".

K was sentenced to a fine of £10,000 in default of which she would be subject to imprisonment for 35 days. B was sentenced to a conditional discharge of 2 years. They both appealed.

Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Green said it did not accept that the judge had erred in any material way in the directions he gave to the jury in the case of K.

It also did not agree that the judge erred by giving an unfair and inaccurate description of B's case and the issues that it raised. When the directions were considered in the round they were fair and accurate and the jury would not have been misled by anything said.

In relation to the trial judge’s approach to the exclusion of parts of B’s police interview during which she fell asleep, due to her narcolepsy, it was argued on her behalf that the judge had erred. It was said that had B woken up she might have decided, contrary to her earlier indication, to give answers to questions and this might have included exculpatory material. She therefore lost the chance to give evidence advantageous to her case.

Lord Justice Green noted that the judge had directed the jury upon this. “In our view there was no unfairness which could conceivably have arisen,” the Court of Appeal judge said. “We have reviewed the interview evidence and in our judgment this is an entirely hypothetical objection.”

The Court of Appeal judge also said no criticism could be made of the directions given by the judge to the jury in relation to the evidence of a Ms Abdoluaye, who had been a friend of B until they fell out. Following an application from the defence, the trial judge declined to discharge the jury but he did direct the jury to remove the evidence from their bundle.

Lord Justice Green said: “This was par excellence a case management decision taken by an experienced trial judge who fully understood what was, and what was not, prejudicial. The Judge acted in a precautionary manner and it is not possible to infer from his decision to direct removal of the material that he thought either that the material was prejudicial or that, if it was, it could not be adequately countered by appropriate directions. This was, in our judgment, quintessentially, a matter for the judge and we can identify no error on his part.”

Finally the Court of Appeal rejected an allegation that the judge acted unfairly in the case management measures he applied to deal with B's narcolepsy. It was said that she lost concentration during the trial and fell asleep, including in the witness box.

"We do not accept that the judge conducted an unfair trial," Lord Justice Greens said. "He was conscious of B's limitations. He made adjustments to cater for those limitations. It is plain from the transcripts that he was astute during the trial to modify the adjustments to ensure that B was able to give fair evidence. He was able to form a view, on an ongoing basis, about the steps to be taken to enable B to give her evidence fairly."

The Court of Appeal did, however, quash the order for costs below, which required K to pay £23,000, and ordered that she pay £16,000 instead.