Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG -v- Bradshaw [2017] JRC 119 (28 July 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2017/2017_119.html
Cite as: [2017] JRC 119
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - fraud.
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq. Commissioner, and Jurats Liston and Ronge. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Geraldine Bradshaw
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Knowingly furnishing false information with intent to obtain an award, contrary to Article 16(a) of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 (Count 1). |
|
2 counts of: |
Obtaining an award knowing that it was not properly payable, contrary to Article 16(b) of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 (Count 2). |
Age: 59.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Count 1
In April 2007, the defendant submitted a Joint Application for Income Support on behalf of herself and her two sons (now aged 17 and 23). The defendant's claim to Income Support was based on her inability to work for medical reasons. In the section of the form concerning capital assets, the defendant declared one bank account and wrote "none" in the boxes relating to investments and property. In fact, she owned a property in Wales which she inherited from her mother in 2001, who retained lifetime enjoyment until her death in 2013. She also had numerous bank accounts and bonds which held a combined balance in excess of £32,000.000 at the time that she began receiving Income Support. Further accounts were opened and managed throughout the offending period, but not declared to the Social Security Department. Over a nine year period the defendant fraudulently claimed £102,788.37 in Income Support.
Counts 2 and 3
In October 2008 and January 2012, the defendant submitted two applications for Special Payments in respect of the costs of dental treatment. As a result she was awarded a special payment of £657.50 and a loan of £250.00. The loan had been paid back through income support payment deductions prior to the offending coming to light in 2016, following information received by the Social Security Department from an anonymous source.
The total sum wrongfully claimed by the defendant was £103,725.87.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES
-¢ Offending spanned a nine year period;
-¢ The most substantial benefit fraud to be sentenced by the Court, committed over the most prolonged period.
Details of Mitigation
Good character, early guilty pleas, cooperation with the investigation, remorse and significant repayments;
Depression and anxiety which may have adversely affected her decision-making abilities at the material time.
Previous Convictions:
Only historic previous convictions. Treated as having previous good character.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
3 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 3 years' imprisonment.
Compensation Order sought in the sum of £37,533.78.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
2 years' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 2 years' imprisonment.
No Compensation Order made.
M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate N. H. MacDonald for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1. The defendant is to be sentenced for three counts of social security fraud carried out between 2008 and 2016 by which £102,788.37 was obtained under Count 1 and much smaller sums under Counts 2 and 3 giving rise to a debt of £103,445.87, of which £63,799.91 have been repaid leaving £37,533.78 outstanding. At the current rate of repayments taken from the defendant's income support payments this debt will not be repaid now until February 2033.
2. The fraud involves the non-disclosure of a property in Wales inherited from the defendant's mother and numerous bank accounts and bonds. This is the largest sum defrauded from Social Security and the most prolonged period of offending. We have been taken through the sentencing principles set out in the case of R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115 adopted by this Court in AG-v-Morin [2010] JRC 217D.
3. The defendant is assessed at a low risk of reconviction and she has effectively no record. In terms of mitigation she has pleaded guilty. We have a letter of remorse from her and other letters and references which we have taken into account. She has a significant history of chronic depression going back many years. We have had a psychological report from Doctor Engelbrecht which says that this may have impacted upon her ability to make decision. Doctor Engelbrecht also advises that imprisonment will impact adversely on her mental health. The issue for us is whether this is sufficient to overcome the need to impose a deterrent sentence for offending which has been described in this way in the case of AG-v-Couillard [2011] JRC 179A:
2. Benefit fraud is offensive. Most Islanders pay what they should pay into the funds which the Island needs, and claim what they should claim; and it is when people step outside those arrangements that the contract which government makes with the citizens of the Island, falls down. People no longer feel confident about the money that they pay in if they think that their money is being abused, and had you broken into somebody's house and stolen this sum of money, there is no question that the Court would have looked at it very seriously indeed and been looking at a custodial sentence. Cheating the public is really no different in principle"
4. In the case of AG-v-McDonald [2014] JRC 100 the court on the facts there felt able to avoid custody for a social security fraud just under £50,000 because the defendant had been diagnosed with a recurrent depressive disorder and additional psychological problems. He had just been admitted to Orchard House on an emergency basis and advice received by the court was to the effect that a sentence of imprisonment would have a very detrimental effect on him. The defendant in this case also has a formal diagnosis of recurrent depressive disorder but the circumstances of every diagnosis and of every patient and the impact upon them will be different. In this case Doctor Engelbrecht has advised that the defendant currently does not require hospital treatment. We have considered the matter very carefully but in our view the duration of this fraud, the frequency of it and the amounts involved are just too serious for us to avoid a custodial outcome. There was no issue as to the defendant's cognitive ability when she filed these forms on a regular basis and over these many years she was actively managing these bank accounts and bonds which she had not disclosed. However, in the light of her circumstances we do feel able to reduce the sentence sought.
5. On Count 1 you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, and on Count 3; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 2 years' imprisonment.
6. We are not going to impose a Compensation Order.
Authorities
R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115.
AG-v-Couillard [2011] JRC 179A.
AG-v-McDonald and Hughes [2014] JRC 100.