Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/153

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th August 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

Robert Andrew Munro Wood

Age:     48.

Plea:    Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Between February 1999 and April 2002 Wood obtained sickness and invalidity benefit in the sum of £31,335.26 while assisting his partner in her second hand car business.  Wood's involvement in the business was substantial in that he advised on purchases, carried out work on the cars, negotiated purchases and sales, arranged advertising and arranged for vehicles to be placed in auction sales.

Each count related to a period covered by a medical certificate citing depression where Wood had signed that he had not worked since the date of the previous certificate.  However, in each case it was shown that he had been working in his partner's business at the relevant time and had therefore obtained the benefit by deception.

The fraud against the Social Security Fund was in a significant amount and had been committed over a three year period.  Wood had told Police Officers words to the effect that he saw no point in getting a job when he could obtain money through benefit.  Wood had not attempted to repay any of the money at the date of sentence.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and co-operation.  Wood had not intended to defraud the Fund from the outset - the first medical certificate submitted had been genuine.  The benefits obtained were not spent on luxuries, but rather living expenses.  There was a history of depression caused by 30 years of smoking cannabis.  Wood had made efforts to reform since he had been charged and was a dedicated family man.  Prison would have a disastrous effect on his young children and partner, who had no housing qualifications.

Previous Convictions:

Record spanned 27 years - only three previous convictions for dishonesty in 1986 and 1975.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted; but no compensation order made.

Benefit fraud is not victimless - it is against all contributing members of the Social Security Fund.  Court had no doubt that Wood knew what he was doing was wrong but that he chose to close his eyes to his obligations under the benefit scheme.  Taking into account all circumstances, the Court had no doubt that a deterrent sentence in prison was required.

C Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.R.G. Deacon for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        As has been rightly said by the Crown Advocate benefit fraud is not a victimless offence.  To defraud the Social Security Fund is to act dishonestly in relation to all contributors and indeed to the public at large.  This defendant has admitted defrauding the Fund of over £31,000 over a period of 3 years.  His explanation to the police was that he could see no point in obtaining a proper job when he could get more by claiming benefit.

2.        We have considered the various factors enumerated in Livingstone Stewart & Others (1987) 9 Cr. App R. (S) 135.  We accept that the defendant originally had a valid claim for benefit and that this is not a case where money has been used to support luxurious living.  On the other hand, we have no doubt that the defendant knew that what he was doing was wrong, and that he closed his eyes to the reality of the fraud that he was committing. 

3.        In mitigation we have taken account of the guilty plea which, to Wood's credit, was entered at a very early stage.  It is very sad but inevitable that Wood's family have suffered, and will suffer, as a result of the long standing fraud that he committed.  Having taken into account all the circumstances the Court has no doubt that fraud of this kind and on this scale must be punished by a prison sentence.  Others who might be tempted to defraud the Social Security Fund must be left in no doubt as to the likely consequences.

4.        Wood, your counsel has said, very persuasively on your behalf, everything that could be said.  We have read your letter carefully, and hope that you will keep to the good intentions that you have expressed and make something of your life not only for your benefit, but indeed for the benefit of your children.  In the meantime, we have to sentence you for the serious fraud that you have committed.  We think that the Crown Advocate has taken everything which should be taken into account in his conclusions.  The conclusions are granted and you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment. 

5.        We have considered carefully whether we should make a compensation order.  We think that at present there is no realistic prospect of such an order being met and that, in accordance with the submissions of defence counsel, such an order is inappropriate in this case and, therefore, will not be made.

Authorities

A.G. -v-Halsall (9^th December, 1996) Jersey Unreported.

Livingstone Stewart & Others (1987) 9 Cr. App R. (S)135.

A.G.-v- Whelan (12^th May, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/82].

A.G.-v- Pritchard (20^th October, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

Johnson -v- A.G. (15^th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/50].

A.G. -v- Fitzsimmons (1^st October, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/164].