ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
26 February 1999
Before: FC Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Rumfitt, and de Veulle
AG
-v-
Julie Kathlyn Reynolds
John Philip Tadier
JULIE KATHLYN REYNOLDS
1 count of wrongfully obtaining a sum as on account of an allowance, contrary to Article 16(b) of the Family Allowances (Jersey) Law, 1972, (count 1.)
1 count of obtaining money by false pretences (count 2.)
Age: 32
Plea: Guilty
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea and frank admissions. Not a sophisticated fraud and weekly sums not substantial. Whilst these were deliberate frauds, they were based on a legitimate claim: she would have been entitled to the benefits even if she had told the truth - the difference went to quantum. Funds defalcated had been applied to the purchase of essential items for her and her children, not on unnecessary luxuries. Also applied to payment of debts with which she had been saddled following the departure of her husband. Four children aged 14, 6, 4, and 8 months would have to be taken into care if she went to prison. Efforts being made to pay off the amounts by which she and her co-defendant had benefited.
Previous Convictions:
1985; forgery and false pretences (21 counts). Probation and compensation orders.
1994: larceny from shops ( goods £112). Probation 1 year.
Conclusions:
Count 1: 3 months imprisonment
Count 2: 6 months imprisonment concurrent
Sentence & Observations of the Court:
Count 1: 12 months probation order; 75 hours of community service.
Count 2: 12 months probation order, 150 hours of community service.
JOHN PHILIP TADIER
1 count of aiding and abetting another to obtain money by false pretences (count 3).
Age: 25
Plea: Guilty
Details of Mitigation:
As per Reynolds, in addition remorse, realisation that what he had done was "stupid". Good work record, making reparations.
Previous Convictions:
Early 1990’s motoring ( 6 charges). Fines and disqualification.
1993: Taking and driving away and other motoring - fines and disqualification, community service 75 hours.
1998: Larceny from shops ( goods £145). Community service 45 hours.
Conclusions:
4 months imprisonment
Sentence & observations of the Court: 12 months Probation Order. 150 hours community service.
Details of Offence: (both accused)
Reynolds filed various claims stating that she was a single mother, living on her own with her three, later four, children. Had these statements been true, she would have been lawfully entitled to payment of Family Allowance from Social Security, and to a substantial reduction in her weekly rental liability from the Housing Committee, The statements were not true. The Defendants in fact lived together in States rented accommodation for a period of a year from September 1997 until September, 1998. Had this been known Tadiers financial support of Reynolds and her children would have been taken into account in the assessment of both sets of benefit. Reynolds maintained the deceptions after she had borne a child to Tadier. Both Defendants lied to the various authorities and continued to lie when investigations were commenced, making written statements that Reynolds lived alone and that Tadier lived with his parents. Tadier attempted, unsuccessfully, to involve his father in the deception of the Housing Committee. It was not alleged that Tadier had assisted in the Social Security fraud. Tadier admitted his involvement when confronted with his fathers statement, and Reynolds admitted hers a day later. Thereafter both were co-operative and pleaded guilty throughout. The Housing Committee was defrauded of a sum estimated at £1,588.23, and the Department of Employment and Social Security of the sum of £3,185.20 over a period of about twelve months. Reynolds showed little remorse.
Sentence & Observations of the Court:
These had been deliberate offences of fraud, compounded by the period of time over which they had been committed and by the false statements that the Defendants had made. The Crown had been perfectly correct to move conclusions as it had. The Court could not, however, ignore the interests of the four children, one of whom was very young and needed her mothers daily care. If Reynolds went to prison the children would probably have to go into care and this would be "a punishment too far". But for that factor, Reynolds sentence might well have been different. It was impossible to treat Tadier more severely than his co-accused and accordingly periods of Community Service would be imposed in both cases.
AJ Olsen Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate JC Gollop for JK Reynolds
Advocate RG Morris for JP Tadier
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Mr Morris for Tadier, says that his client wishes that he could put the clock back. That is no doubt true because these were deliberate offences compounded over a period of time, involving gain made by false statements, some in writing, some verbal.
The task of the various departments has been greatly increased, and those in real need have been defrauded by the diminishing of the funds available for distribution. Neither Mrs Reynolds nor Mr Tadier come out of this with any credit. They are offences, as Crown Advocate Olsen has rightly said, well deserving of a custodial sentence, and the Crown was perfectly right to move the conclusions that it has today.
This was a serious cheating of the public purse, and even when a chance was given to make a declaration that opportunity was not taken. However, there are four children aged 14, 6, 4, and 8 months, and they would have to be put into care and in our view that would be a punishment too far. Mrs Reynolds, will you stand up please. You are going to serve on count 1: 75 hours of Community Service, and on count 2: 150 hours of Community Service. Tadier will you stand up please. The false declaration you made to the Housing Committee might have made it inevitable that you should serve a custodial sentence, but in our view it would be inequitable for us to deal with you differently, and therefore on count 3 you will perform 150 hours of Community Service.
Now, for those purposes you will each be placed on probation for 12 months and the Community Service Order is to be completed within that time. I have to tell you this; if you do not comply with those orders, you will both be brought back to Court. Counts to run concurrently.
Authorities
Livingstone, Stewart & Ors (1987) 9 Cr.App.R(S) 135
Laverick (11 January 1999) Jersey Unreported
Botrel and Hutchings (2 October 1987) Jersey Unreported
Quinn (7 August 1992) Jersey Unreported
Davis (11 July 1993) Jersey Unreported
Halsall (9 December 1996) Jersey Unreported
Godwin (30 October 1998) Jersey Unreported [1998.218]