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 >> The Attorney General v Kelly Anne Bradley [2021] JRC 285 (12 November 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2021/2021_285.html
Cite as: [2021] JRC 285
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - benefit fraud.
|
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ramsden and Christensen |
The Attorney General
-v-
Kelly Anne Bradley
Adrian Mark Bradley
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). |
Age: Kelly Anne BRADLEY 55 - Adrian Mark BRADLEY 57.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
In January 2008, the first Defendant's benefit claim for Income Support ("IS") commenced quite properly. On 26th April 2010, Mrs Bradley telephoned the Social Security Department and told them that Mr Bradley had left the household. Mr Bradley was removed from the IS claim and Mrs Bradley received notification of her new weekly rate of Income Support which was £449.82 per week. Previously the Defendants had been in receipt of £90.93 per week in Income Support as Mr Bradley was the principal bread winner.
As a result of an investigation which began in April 2019, it transpired that the Defendants had provided false information and deliberately misled the Department into believing that they were not living together since April 2010 when, in fact, Mr Bradley had left the household for only a few weeks.
During the period of the claim, Mrs Bradley submitted at least 17 change of circumstances applications to the Department, notifying of changes which may impact upon her IS benefit claim. She also received 15 Notice of Amended IS Benefit letters from the Department, each of which set out the requirement for the claimant to notify the Department of any change of their financial or family circumstances. Mrs Bradley also completed 48 Jobseekers weekly declarations in which she failed to notify the department she was living with her husband. (At no point did she inform the Department in these that she was reconciled and living with her husband in the family home.)
Mr Bradley attended at the Department on a monthly basis between June 2010 and July 2016; no less than 69 occasions in relation to his ongoing Long Term Incapacity Allowance claim. At no time did he disclose to staff that he was living with Mrs Bradley at the property, albeit he was not attending in relation to their Income Support.
On 4th June 2019, two intervention officers visited the property. Mr Bradley answered the door dressed only in trousers (he was naked from the waist up). Officers spoke to both Mr and Mrs Bradley separately. They told the officers that Mr Bradley was just visiting the property. When officers asked about Mr Bradley's address history both Defendants only provided vague information. Mrs Bradley also told officers that that they were not in a relationship and they had no plans to live together. This information was provided to the officers in the form of a signed statement as well: "We are not in a relationship we are friends. Adrian supports me as I've been through a difficult time. We do not have any plans to live together."
In June 2019 the Department sent the Defendants an address history letter which asked them to confirm Mr Bradley's address history from 26th April 2010 to the date of the letter. Mr Bradley provided a written response listing an hotel, some incomplete addresses and addresses of other people he claimed to have lived with during that period, including his son. He knew that he had been residing at the family home for almost the entire period.
On 29th November 2019, Mrs Bradley was provided with an overpayment letter, after it was determined that Mr Bradley had been a part of the household throughout her claim. It was determined that Mrs Bradley was not entitled to Income Support based upon the earnings of Mr Bradley and other income and this had resulted in an overpayment of £144,428.73. Mrs Bradley did not appeal the determination.
In interview the Defendants accepted that Mr Bradley had been a member of the household for the entire period of the claim, save for a few weeks in April 2010.
Details of Mitigation:
Kelly Ann Bradley
Guilty plea, cooperative in interview, remorse.
Adrian Mark Bradley
Guilty plea, cooperative in interview.
Previous Convictions:
Kelly Ann Bradley
No relevant previous convictions.
Adrian Mark Bradley
No relevant previous convictions.
Conclusions:
Mrs Kelly Ann Bradley
|
Count 1: |
3 years' imprisonment. |
Mr Adrian Mark Bradley
|
Count 1: |
3 years' imprisonment. |
No order for Compensation was sought as both had agreed a signed repayment plan with the Department.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
C. R. Baglin, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate Sette for Defendant Kelly Ann Bradley.
Advocate Dale for Defendant Adrian Mark Bradley.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. Karen Bradley and Adrian Bradley, you have pleaded guilty to a serious offence of benefit fraud. Over nine years the Social Security Department was furnished with false information in respect of the constitution of your household. Mrs Bradley you ultimately received over £144,000 in income support to which she was not entitled. This is not a victimless crime. Other taxpayers were forced to subsidise your dishonesty.
2. The benefit claim began lawfully in 2008, but in April 2010 Mrs Bradley you telephoned the Department and said that your husband was having an affair, had cleared his bank accounts, stopped your access to funds and left you. You were sent a change in circumstances form which you completed, declaring your husband had left the home.
3. On the basis of that declaration, your income support rose from about £90 per week to £449 per week. Nine years later the Department began an investigation having received information that in fact you were both living together at Greve d'Azette. Apart from a short period in 2010 always have been.
4. During the nine years of your dishonest claim Mrs Bradley, you submitted 17 change of circumstance applications notifying the Department of changes which might affect your benefit. But you never told them the truth about the presence of your husband at home. You also received 15 notice of amended benefit letters from the Department, each of which set out the requirement for you to notify the Department of any change in your financial or family circumstances. Not only did you not complete these forms honestly, you completed them dishonestly and in August 2012 and September 2013 you completed review forms which declared that you had split up with your husband in 2009 and needed help to live and pay rent. You said that you and your husband were still separated but that you had "not yet gone through court." This was untrue. You also completed 48 job seeker declarations in which you failed to notify the Department that you were still living with your husband.
5. Mr Bradley, you went to the Department on a monthly basis between June 2010 and July 2016 in connection with your long-term incapacity claim - no less than 69 times. You never disclosed to the staff that you were still living with your wife at home.
6. The two of you also conspired together to suggest that you were not only separated but that Mr Bradley you were giving limited maintenance to your wife. You have wrote a letter to the Department Mr Bradley in which you said that certain payments were being made and that was all you could afford.
7. In September 2013 Mrs Bradley, you told the Department that Mr Bradley had been backlisted by HSBC because of poor credit and you only revealed to the Department one bank account you had but not the joint account that you had together with Mr Bradley into which his wages and long-term incapacity benefit were being paid.
8. When Departmental intervention officers went to you home in June 2019, they found Mr Bradley naked from the waist up, only wearing trousers, and you both lied to the officers saying that Mr Bradley was just visiting. Mrs Bradley you said and indeed completed a form to the effect that you were not in a relationship with your husband and had no plans to live together. Mrs Bradley then tried to throw Departmental officers off the scent by asking for your income support claim to be closed in June 2019.
9. When you were interviewed Mrs Bradley, you did admit that Mr Bradley had been living with you throughout the time of your claim and only left the property for a few weeks in April 2010. You expressed remorse and said you wanted to pay the money back, but you cannot as the sum is too large.
10. Mr Bradley also made full admissions to the effect that it was a very short break-up in 2010 and even during this period your financial support to the household continued. You also accepted that you had lied to the officers when they attended your home. You expressed remorse and said you wanted to pay the money back.
11. You have both pleaded guilty and we treat you both as having no relevant convictions. This is a serious matter and the sum involved is equivalent to the most substantial benefit fraud case that has come before the Court. The maximum sentence for this offence is 7 years imprisonment. As the Royal Court said in AG-v-Good and Moody [2015] JRC 027, you were cheating every member of the community by taking money to which you were not entitled. This sort of offence is an affront to genuine benefit claimants who need the support that you did not.
12. We have taken into account the contents of the Probation Report and the letters that have been written on your behalf fact and your letters of remorse. We have taken into account the fact that this begin as a genuine claim and there is no evidence, which the Crown accepts of extravagance in terms of the expenditure. We note that you have repaid just over £7,000
13. We note you Mr Bradley have accepted full responsibility for your part in this offending. Your Advocate has told us that you accept that you are of equal culpability with your wife and that you were, in her words, "in this together".
14. You both benefited from over £144.000 fraudulently obtained over a nine year period. We know that you have both struggled with health issues during this period and you are both in many respects hard working people and that you have faced financial challenges. But that is true of many people in our community, and they do not resort to benefit fraud in the way that you have and on this scale. On any view, these offences are so serious that only a custodial sentence is warranted, and we grant the conclusions of the Crown. Accordingly, you are both sentenced 3 years imprisonment. In view of the instalment agreement you have signed we do not need to make a Compensation Order and in view of your means we make no order as to costs.
Authorities
Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007.
Income Support (General Provisions)(Jersey) Order 2008.