Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - withholding information from Social Security - aiding and abetting.

[2015]JRC027

Royal Court

(Samedi)

6 February 2015

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Milner

The Attorney General

-v-

Vaunah Michelle Good

Ronald Dennis Moody

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Vaunah Michelle Good

1 count of:

Withholding material information from the Social Security Department, contrary to Article 16(a) of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 (Count 1).

Age:  47.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Over 4½ years Good claimed £49,140.15 in income support whilst concealing the fact that her partner Moody lived with her.  They both concealed their joint bank account and misled the Department repeatedly in correspondence.  Moody was evasive in interview. 

Details of Mitigation:

Both had benefit of pleas, character, work ethic, and support to family, some delay in prosecution and some repayment of the debt.  Good was remorseful and had difficulties in her background. 

Previous Convictions:

One historic conviction for larceny as a servant.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

15 months imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Income support fraud is extremely serious and an affront to those who pay their contributions.

Count 1:

210 hours' Community Service Order or 15 months' imprisonment in default.

Ronald Dennis Moody

1 count of:

Aiding and abetting the commission of an offence under Article 16(a) of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007, contrary to Article 17(3) of the said Law (Count 2).

Age:  45.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Good above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Good above.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 2:

15 months imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Income support fraud is extremely serious and an affront to those who pay their contributions.

Count 2:

210 hours' Community Service Order or 15 months' imprisonment in default.

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Mrs Good has pleaded guilty to one count of withholding material information from the Social Security Department with the intent of obtaining an award of income support.  The withheld information was that she was living with her co-accused and that she held a joint bank account with him.  Mr Moody has pleaded guilty to one count of aiding abetting Mrs Good in that offence and the details are that he submitted 17 medical certificates showing, falsely, that he lived at a different address and on two occasions had said that he had no bank account.  The non-disclosures were not only deliberate but it is clear that you had plenty of opportunity to tell the Department the truth and you received many warnings that you should do so.  The offences which are really continuing offences lasted for a period of 4½ years and as a result, Mrs Good, you obtained £49,140 in benefits to which you were not entitled.  Mr Moody was evasive in interview and, although it is said by Advocate Grace that Mrs Good was not, we think there is room from the summary we have seen for identifying some evasions there as well. 

2.        In your favour there have been early guilty pleas and remorse substantially, for both of you are of good character and the money, we are told, will be recovered by the Social Security Department out of future benefits payable and, in particular, the investigation has been hanging over you for a long time.  It started with interview in May 2013 which concluded by March 2014 and the prosecution was not brought until September 2014 but, nonetheless, it is well known that a defendant gets no credit when it is his or her own fraud which causes the difficulty of finding out what has actually taken place. 

3.        Mrs Good, in your favour in addition you have clearly loved and supported your family, the money has not been spent on luxuries, you have been suffering depression from the delay and there are the matters set out in the social enquiry report. 

4.        Mr Moody, in your favour you clearly did try to take some of the blame eventually and it is accepted that you have equal blame.  You have a positive employment record and we note that you have made arrangements for repayment of some of the monies obtained and you are committed to taking a second job, we are told, and increase the rate at which the monies can be repaid. 

5.        We reject the view that it was a large household and that, somehow or other, Mrs Good did not know who was living in it.  It was obviously necessary for her to know who was there for the purposes of claiming income support.  Now, it has been said before and I am going to say it again, that income support fraud is extremely serious.  The legislature lays down a maximum of 7 years' imprisonment which shows how seriously the legislature treats it and it is, for the absolute avoidance of doubt, as bad a fraud as any other form of fraud.  You are cheating every member of our community by taking monies to which you are not entitled.  It is an affront to everybody who is just as badly off as you are but they do not cheat and they tell the truth.  It is an affront to everybody who pays their contributions into the fund because they rely on all those who are claiming benefits to claim according to the rules and ensure they do not claim benefits that they should not have, and you have taken £49,000 over a 4½ year period.  It is not only the obvious sentence that you should go to prison - you should go to prison.  For one reason only, you are not going to go to prison.  

6.        We recognise from the social enquiry report Mrs Good that you have had particular difficulties, which it is unnecessary to go into in public, and we recognise that you have come through those in every respect pretty well so far.  For that reason only we are going to exercise some mercy and not send you to prison, although that is where you should go.  We are going to sentence you to 210 hours' community service and the alternative would have been 15 months' imprisonment. 

7.        Mr Moody, you do not have that mitigation.  On the other hand you are to be treated in the same way as Mrs Good so you are lucky.  You are as guilty as she is but you are not guiltier and you are going to get the same sentence.  You will therefore serve 210 hours' community service with 15 months imprisonment as an alternative which is the custody we would have been considering. 

8.        I must warn you both that if you do not perform the Community Service Order then you are liable to be brought back to court and you can be sentenced again for these offences but I am sure that will not arise. 

Authorities

Income Support (Jersey) Law 2008.

AG v Morin [2010] JRC 217D.

AG v Gallagher [2011] JRC 129.

AG v McDonald and Hughes [2014] JRC 100.

AG v Harris 1997/57.

R v Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey 3rd Edition (2011).