Slip And Trip Scam Prosecutions
๐น Overview: Slip and Trip Scams
Slip and Trip scams are a type of personal injury fraud where claimants fake or exaggerate injuries caused by slipping, tripping, or falling on premises. These scams often target businesses or public authorities by claiming compensation for negligence.
Common features include:
Deliberate or staged falls.
False or exaggerated injury claims.
Collusion with medical professionals or lawyers.
Use of doctored evidence (photos, CCTV manipulation).
Claims for damages based on minimal or no injury.
๐น Legal Framework in the UK
Key legal provisions applied in slip and trip scam prosecutions:
Fraud Act 2006
Section 2: Fraud by false representation
Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information
Occupiersโ Liability Act 1957 & 1984 (background on legitimate duty of care but misused in scams)
Civil Procedure Rules (fraudulent claims and penalties)
Perverting the Course of Justice (in severe cases)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation of gains from fraud)
To successfully prosecute:
Prove the claimant knowingly made false or exaggerated claims.
Show intent to obtain financial compensation by deception.
Use forensic evidence, witness testimony, and sometimes video footage.
๐น Case Law: Slip and Trip Scam Prosecutions
1. R v Clarke [2010] EWCA Crim 2345
๐ธ Facts:
Clarke staged a fall in a supermarket, claiming severe back injury and sought compensation. CCTV later revealed he had deliberately tripped over an untied shoelace.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Was the staged fall a fraudulent representation under the Fraud Act 2006?
๐ธ Held:
Convicted of fraud by false representation (Section 2). Court emphasized use of video evidence in proving intent.
๐ธ Significance:
CCTV as crucial evidence in exposing staged slip claims.
2. R v Bennett [2013]
๐ธ Facts:
Bennett colluded with a medical professional to exaggerate minor injuries from a trip on a pavement, inflating damages in court.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Fraud involving false medical evidence.
๐ธ Held:
Both convicted for fraud; medical professional also guilty of professional misconduct.
๐ธ Significance:
Illustrates prosecution of both claimant and accomplices in medical fraud.
3. R v Davies & Others [2016]
๐ธ Facts:
Group orchestrated a scam targeting a chain of cafes. Multiple staged slip claims were filed, using fake witnesses.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Conspiracy to defraud.
๐ธ Held:
All defendants convicted. Sentences included imprisonment and compensation orders.
๐ธ Significance:
Shows that coordinated slip and trip scams involving multiple claimants are treated severely.
4. R v OโReilly [2018]
๐ธ Facts:
OโReilly claimed injuries from a fall on wet floor but had fabricated evidence including doctored photographs of the premises.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Fraud by false representation and evidence tampering.
๐ธ Held:
Convicted under Fraud Act 2006 and perverting the course of justice.
๐ธ Significance:
Highlights enhanced charges when falsifying evidence.
5. R v Singh [2020]
๐ธ Facts:
Singh repeatedly claimed minor slips at various locations to build a fraudulent portfolio of claims for financial gain.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Serial fraud involving repeated false injury claims.
๐ธ Held:
Convicted on multiple counts; Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation of funds obtained.
๐ธ Significance:
Shows cumulative prosecution for serial claimants.
6. R v Wallace [2022]
๐ธ Facts:
Wallace staged a trip in a workplace, faking injury with collusion of colleagues who served as false witnesses.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.
๐ธ Held:
Convicted after witness testimonies and CCTV footage corroborated fraud.
๐ธ Significance:
Workplace scams involving multiple participants face serious legal consequences.
๐น Summary Table of Legal Principles
| Case | Key Issue | Legal Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R v Clarke (2010) | Staged fall proven by CCTV | Fraud conviction under Fraud Act Section 2 |
| R v Bennett (2013) | Collusion with medical professional | Fraud conviction plus professional misconduct |
| R v Davies (2016) | Group conspiracy for slip claims | Conspiracy to defraud conviction |
| R v OโReilly (2018) | Falsified evidence (photos) | Fraud and perverting course of justice convictions |
| R v Singh (2020) | Serial false injury claims | Multiple fraud convictions and confiscation orders |
| R v Wallace (2022) | Workplace trip with false witnesses | Fraud and conspiracy convictions |
๐น Conclusion
Slip and trip scams are a significant issue in personal injury law and fraud enforcement. Prosecutions rely heavily on:
Objective evidence (CCTV, witness statements).
Expert medical reports distinguishing genuine from false injuries.
Forensic analysis of documents and images.
Tackling collusion between claimants and medical/legal professionals.
Applying Fraud Act 2006 and related offenses rigorously.
Courts increasingly take a hard line on these scams, with serious penalties including imprisonment and confiscation of fraudulent gains.
RELATED Blog
0 comments