Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4003 (QB)
Claim No: 9LV11893 & 0LV08453 & 2IR54647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Liverpool Civil Justice Centre,
35 Vernon Street, Merseyside, L2 2BX 

Date: 28/11/2014

Before :

MR JUSTICE LEWIS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	MR MOHAMMED ADRIS AZIZ	Claimant	
	- and -		
	(1) ANSAR ALI 
(2) ESURE SERVICES LTD	
Defendants	
			
	MR ABDUL JAMIL	Claimant	
	- and -		
	(1) MR SHERZAD SERWAN 
(2) LIVERPOOL VICTORIA INSURANCE SERVICES	
Defendants	
			
	(1) MRS FARHANA KAZMI 
(2) MRS SHAMILA SALEEM	
Claimants	
	- and -		
	(1) MR SHERZAD SERWAN 
(2) LIVERPOOL VICTORIA INSURANCE SERVICES	
Defendants	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Shafi on behalf of Mr Mohammed Adris Aziz
Mr David on behalf of Mr Abdul Jamil
Ms Hussain on behalf of Mrs Shamila Saleem
 Mrs Kazmi appeared in person
Mr Ali and Mr Serwan did not appear and were not represented
Mr Higgins (instructed by Horwich Farrely) for the Second Defendants

Hearing date: 26th November 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Mr Justice Lewis:

INTRODUCTION

1.	This is an application for committal to prison made in respect of four individuals, Mr Mohammed Adris Aziz, Mr Abdul Jamil, Mrs Shamila Saleem and Mrs Farhana Kazmi. The application arises out of false statements made by each of them in the course of proceedings brought by them for compensation for injuries sustained in two separate car accidents. The accidents never happened. The individuals never suffered any injuries. The claims were false when made and were known to be false. The claims for damages were dismissed following a five day trial. Permission was subsequently given to the 2nd Defendant, the insurance company, to bring proceedings for contempt of court. At different times, in the circumstances described below, all four individuals admitted that they had made false statements, verified by a statement of truth, without an honest belief in their truth. 

BACKGROUND

2.	The background is as follows. Mr Aziz is a private hire vehicle driver. He brought a claim for damages for negligence arising out an alleged car accident. In his particulars of claim, and his witness statement dated 22 October 2010, he said that he was driving his car on 7 April 2009 along Gledhow Valley Road in Leeds and that another vehicle came out of a side road, did not give way, and drove into the side of his vehicle. He said that the driver of that other car came out without stopping and hit his car. He said that he suffered injuries as a result and attached a medical report to his particulars of claim setting out the alleged injuries. In his witness statement, he also said that there were business cards at his workplace advertising a particular agency as an accident management company and he telephoned them. The particulars of claim, and his witness statement were each verified by a statement of truth. The statements made formed the basis of 10 allegations of contempt included in the application notice dated 18 July 2014, for making false statements without an honest belief in their truth.

3.	The proceedings also relate to a second alleged car accident. Mr Abdul Jamil is a taxi driver. He brought a claim for damages for negligence. In his particulars of claim, and his witness statement dated 1 July 2010, he said that he was driving his car, carrying two female passengers, along Brudenell Street in Leeds on 3 April 2009. He said that another car failed to give way and collided with his car and that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the other car. Mr Jamil said he suffered injuries and attached a medical report to his particulars of claim setting out the alleged injuries. The particulars of claim, and his witness statement, were each verified by a statement of truth. The statements made formed the basis of 7 allegations of contempt for making false statements without an honest belief in their truth included in an application notice dated 18 July 2014.

4.	Mrs Shaleem and Mrs Kazmi also brought a claim. In their particulars of claim, and their individual witness statements each dated 1 November 2010, they said that they were passengers in a taxi being driven by Mr Jamil along Brudenell Mount on or about 3rd of April 2009, that another car failed to give way and collided with the vehicle in which they were travelling. They each said that the accident was caused by the negligence of the other car. They each said that they suffered injuries and attached a medical report setting out the alleged injuries to the particulars of claim. The particulars of claim, and each of their witness statements, were each verified by a statement of truth made by each of them. The statements made formed the basis of 8 allegations of contempt in relation to Mrs Saleem, and 8 in relation to Mrs Kazmi, for making false statements without an honest belief in their truth included in an application notice dated 18 July 2014.
5.	The 2nd Defendant, was suspicious about these and other alleged accidents. They became concerned that the people who were said to have taken out insurance policies with them, and who were said to have caused the accidents, did not in fact exist and that the accidents had never happened. They were concerned that the claims were fraudulent attempts to obtain money from them. They analysed a number of claims and found that in five claims (including Mr Aziz’s claim) the insurance policies had been taken out in the names of five different individuals but the same bank details, with the same sort code and account number, had been used at the inception of each of the five policies. In the case of Mr Aziz and the claims of the other three individuals in this case, policies had been taken out in the name of two different individuals but the same telephone number had been given for each of those two individuals. An investigator visited the addresses given for each of the policyholders and no one of the name of the policyholder lived at those addresses.
6.	The trial of the claims was fixed to take place over five days commencing on 19 May 2014. On 19 November 2013, Mrs Kazmi wrote to the 2nd Defendant’s solicitors. In that letter, she admitted that the claim was fraudulent. She expressed her regret about what she had done, and said that she had been motivated by greed and was now afraid of the consequences that her action might have for herself and her children. In March 2014, Mrs Kazmi wrote to the court. She explained that she had gone to Mrs Saleem’s house and she, Mrs Saleem, and another person discussed making a false taxi accident claim where she and Mrs Saleem would say that they were in the taxi when the accident took place. She said that she and Mrs Saleem were not in a taxi accident together and that it was all a lie. She explained again that she regretted what she had done and had been motivated by greed and now feared for the consequences. 
7.	The trial of the claims took place over five days beginning on 19 May 2014. Mr Aziz maintained his story and gave evidence, on oath, to the effect that there had been an accident and that he had been injured and his car damaged as a result of the accident described in his particulars of claim and his witness statement. Mrs Saleem also maintained her story and gave evidence on oath that she and Mrs Kazmi had been travelling together in a taxi driven by Mr Jamil and that there had been an accident and she had suffered injuries. Mrs Kazmi gave evidence on oath and confirmed that there was no such accident and that what she had said in her letters of November 2013 and March 2014 was the truth. Mr Jamil did not attend the trial. Judgment was given on 9 June 2014 and the claims were dismissed: see Aziz v (1) Ali and (2) Esure Services Ltd. and Jamil, Kazmi and Saleem v (1) Serwan and (2) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services [2014] EWHC 1846 (QB). 
8.	Permission was subsequently granted to the 2nd Defendant to bring proceedings for contempt involving 33 allegations against the four claimants. The allegations were all particularised in the application notice dated 18 July 2014. The hearing of the committal application was listed for three days commencing on the 26 November 2014. Representation orders had been granted for the claimants (save for Ms Kazmi who decided to represent herself). The three claimants therefore had instructed solicitors (but not necessarily counsel) by either late October 2014 or early November 2014. Mr Jamil and Mrs Saleem each filed and served a witness statement in the period before the hearing on 26 November 2014. They each maintained that the accident had happened as they had said in their earlier statements. Each witness statement was again accompanied by a statement of truth signed by Mr Jamil and Mrs Saleem saying that the contents were true.
9.	On 26 November 2014, each individual allegation was read out to the relevant claimant and each claimant was asked whether he or she admitted or denied the allegation. Mr Aziz admitted the 10 allegations against him. Mrs Kazmi admitted the 8 allegations against her. Mr Jamil and Mrs Saleem denied each of the 7 and 8 allegations them respectively. The hearing then continued, dealing with Mr Aziz’s case, and his mitigation, first. There was then a short adjournment. The hearing resumed just after midday on 26 November 2014. The court was asked to put the allegations again to Mr Jamil and Mrs Saleem. Each allegation was read out again. Mr Jamil then admitted the 7 allegations against him and Mrs Saleem then admitted the 8 allegations against her.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
10.	The Civil Procedure Rules require that certain documents, including particulars of claim, be verified by a statement of truth: see CPR 22(1). A statement of truth is a statement that the person putting forward the document or making the witness statement “believes the facts stated in the document are true”: see CPR 22(4). 
11.	CPR 32.14(1)  is headed “False statements” and provides as follows:
“32.14(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.”
12.	Consequently, it is a contempt of court, and sanctions including sentences of imprisonment may be imposed,  if a person makes a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth, where the statement has, or if persisted in would be likely to have, interfered with the course of justice, and the person does not have an honest belief in the truth of the statement and knew of its likelihood to interfere with the course of justice: see AXA Insurance UK plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB).
THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION IN THE PRESENT CASES
13.	The evidence in the present cases demonstrates that a series of fraudulent claims were being made with insurance policies being taken out in the name of persons who either did not exist or were not traceable. False claims for compensation were being made for alleged injuries caused by accidents which had never happened. I accept that the four individuals involved in this case were not the organisers of the scheme. They were, however, prepared to participate willingly in the fraudulent scheme by making dishonest and false statements in the course of proceedings. They were motivated by greed and a desire to obtain money.
14.	The making of false statements as part of legal proceedings undermines the administration of justice. Courts have repeatedly emphasised the gravity of such conduct and have emphasised that those who make false claims should expect to be sent to prison: see, by way of example, South Wales Fire and Rescue Service [2011] EWHC 1749 and Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company v Bashir and others [2012] EWHC 895 (Admin). The reasons why such conduct is treated seriously are these.
15.	First, the system of justice in this country requires and depends upon people who bring claims and make statements in court proceedings acting truthfully and honestly. The dishonest making of false statements undermines that system of justice. It undermines public confidence in the justice system. It strikes at the heart of the fair administration of justice.
16.	Secondly, this type of fraudulent claim imposes great costs and great burdens upon the insurance companies dealing with claims. If fraudulent claims are not detected, money is paid out to persons who are not entitled to that money. The insurance companies have also had to devote considerable resources to identifying claims which are fraudulent and in resisting those claims. The costs arising out of dishonest claims are large. Those costs are, ultimately, passed on to and paid by honest drivers in increased insurance premiums. Further, those who make honest genuine claims will, also, inevitably have their claims scrutinised to ensure that they are genuine and to distinguish their claims from the fraudulent claims.
17.	Thirdly, dealing with fraudulent claims involves the use of considerable public and court resources. These claims involved a five day trial. The application for permission to apply for a committal order took a further day. The committal application itself took two further days. That has meant using up considerable court resources, paid for by the tax payer and the public purse. 
18.	I turn then to the individual cases. Mr Aziz is a private hire vehicle driver. He has a wife and 4 children. He has a modest lifestyle. At the time he became involved in this scheme, and made his false statements, circumstances were difficult for him and his family and he admits that he was led into temptation. Mr Aziz has no criminal convictions and was of good character until he made this fraudulent claim. Mr Aziz did admit the allegations at the start of the committal hearing. He has now demonstrated real regret and is now ashamed of his behaviour. I have considered everything said by his counsel on his behalf and I have read the letters sent to me by his two oldest children. The making of these false statements is so serious, however, that only a custodial sentence is justified. As a person who dishonestly made false statements as a willing participant in a fraudulent scheme, but taking account of his personal circumstances, his admissions and his remorse, the appropriate sentence is one of 6 months imprisonment. 
19.	Mr Jamil is taxi driver. He is married with six children all of whom live at home. His father is elderly and has serious health difficulties. Mr Jamil works part-time and spends much of his time caring for his father. He has no previous convictions. I have considered everything said on his behalf. Mr Jamil denied the allegations when they were read out him at the start of the committal hearing. It was only later in the day, after an adjournment, that he asked that the 7 allegations be read to him again and he admitted them. Until that stage he had continued to maintain that the statements in his particulars of claim and in his witness statement of 1 July 2010 were true. Indeed, shortly before the committal hearing, he made another witness statement, again verified by a statement of truth, maintaining that the accident had happened and that his earlier statements were true. I stress that I am not sentencing Mr Jamil for his last witness statement. I am sentencing him only for the false statements in his particulars of claim and his earlier witness statement and which are set out in the application notice. Similarly, the fact that he continued to deny the allegations is not an aggravating factor and the court cannot impose a higher sentence because he denied the allegations. The fact that he admitted these allegations at such a late stage in the proceedings does mean, however, that he can only be given limited credit for admitting the allegations. It is also the case that his conduct demonstrates, in my judgment, no real regret and no real remorse for his actions. 
20.	Counsel on behalf of Mr Jamil submitted that his personal circumstances, and his father’s health difficulties in particular, were such that, exceptionally, a suspended sentence could be justified. I do not agree. Mr Jamil’s conduct is so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence is justified. As a person who dishonestly made false statements as a willing participant in a fraudulent scheme, but taking account of his personal circumstances, and giving some limited credit for his admissions, the appropriate sentence in Mr Jamil’s case is one of 8 months imprisonment.
21.	Mrs Saleem is a woman of 47 years of age. She lives with her husband and has 3 children. The youngest two children are 16 and 14 and live at home. Mrs Saleem is in receipt of benefits. Her husband cannot work and is not entitled to receive benefits by reason of his immigration status. Mrs Saleem suffers from health problems. She has no criminal convictions. I have considered everything that was said on her behalf and I have read the letters that her three children sent to me. Her counsel submitted, on her behalf, that she was not the instigator of the scheme although she accepts that she willingly participated in the scheme. Her counsel also submitted that, as Mrs Saleem was only going to claim that she was a passenger in the taxi, her involvement was limited. I accept that Mrs Saleem was not the organiser of the scheme but she was, as she now accepts, a willing participant in a fraudulent claim. I do not consider that there is any significant difference, in terms of culpability, between her and Mr Jamil and I do not accept that the fact that she was only claiming falsely to be a passenger, not the driver, has any significance in terms of the allegations here. Both are alleged, and now admit, to have dishonestly made false statements in particulars of claim and witness statements as willing participants in a fraudulent claim. 
22.	Mrs Saleem maintained her false statements, on oath, during the trial. Mrs Saleem did not admit the allegations when they were read out to her at the start of the committal hearing. It was only later in the day, after an adjournment, that she asked that the 8 allegations be read to her again and she admitted them. Until that stage she had continued to maintain that the statements in his particulars of claim and in her witness statement of 1 November 2010 were true. Indeed, shortly before the committal hearing, she made another witness statement, again verified by a statement of truth, maintaining that the accident had happened and that her earlier statements were true. I stress that I am not sentencing Mrs Saleem for her last witness statement or the evidence that gave on oath and accepts now was false. I am only sentencing her for the false statements in her particulars of claim and her earlier witness statement and which are set out in the application notice. Similarly, the fact that Mrs Saleem continued to deny the allegations is not an aggravating factor and the court cannot impose a higher sentence because she denied the allegations. The fact that she admitted these allegations at such a late stage in the proceedings does mean, however, that she can only be given limited credit for admitting the allegations. It is also the case that her conduct demonstrates, in my judgment, no real regret and no real remorse for her actions. 
23.	Counsel also submitted that there was no significant difference between her case and that of Mr Aziz as they both admitted responsibility on the same day, albeit that Mrs Saleem made her admission two hours later. In my judgment, the two are not in the same position. Mr Aziz made his admissions as soon as the allegations were read out and, by his conduct taken as a whole, has demonstrated real remorse for what he did. Mrs Saleem did not admit the allegations, even when they were first read to her in court, but only admitted them later and her conduct taken as a whole, does not demonstrate any real regret or remorse.
24.	Counsel on behalf of Mrs Saleem submitted that her personal circumstances, and her limited involvement, were such that, exceptionally, a suspended sentence could be justified. I do not agree. Mrs Saleem’s conduct is so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence is justified. As a person who made dishonest statements as a willing participant in a fraudulent scheme, but taking account of her personal circumstances, and giving some limited credit for her admissions, the appropriate sentence in Mrs Saleem’s case is one of 8 months imprisonment. 
25.	Unless released earlier, Mr Aziz, Mr Jamil and Mrs Saleem will spend ½ of their sentences in prison and will then be released.
26.	Mrs Kazmi is a single mother of three children, two of whom live at home with her. She has no criminal convictions. Her circumstances are, however, very different from the others. Mrs Kazmi admits that she did make false statements in her particulars of claim and her witness statement and admits that she, too, was initially motivated by greed. However, she came to regret what she had done. She herself contacted the 2nd Defendant’s solicitors and wrote to them telling them the truth and expressing her regret for what she had done. She wrote to the court before the trial and again told the truth and again expressed her regret. She gave evidence at the trial and admitted that the claim was fraudulent and the accident never happened. She admitted the allegations when they were read out at the start of the committal hearing. I am satisfied that Mrs Kazmi genuinely regrets what she did. I am satisfied that she is ashamed of what she has done. 
27.	Her admissions and her real and genuine remorse mean that the sentence I impose can be shorter and can be suspended. The sentence will be 12 weeks imprisonment. That will be suspended for 6 months.