Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - providing false information

[2022]JRC097

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 April 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

Teresa De Jesus De Andrade Goncalves

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  61. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

The Defendant's benefit claim commenced properly on 11^th September 2003 following the death of her husband on 7^th September 2003.  The application form contained a declaration that the applicant must contact the department if any person lived in or contributed to the household.

On 19^th February 2013 the Defendant provided a signed declaration that she had not co-habited at any time whilst receiving Survivor's Pension and that she understood that the department must be informed if this should change.  She signed further declarations to the same effect on 23^rd February 2015 and 25^th March 2019.

In reality, the Defendant had been living with her partner since at least 17^th May 2004.  In total she received £117,311.99 in benefits to which she was not entitled from that date until 19^th June 2019.  During the period in which the Defendant made the false statements (February 2013 to March 2019), she fraudulently obtained £52,380.33.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea, previous good character, low risk of re-conviction, genuine remorse, and delay.  The Court noted that as the plea was not entered on first appearance in the Magistrate's Court, full credit was not given for the plea.

Previous Convictions:

None. 

Conclusions:

An instalment agreement was signed by the Defendant on 28^th June 2019; therefore, no compensation order was sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

C. R. Baglin Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. S. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Teresa Goncalves you are 61 years old, and you fall to be sentenced for providing false information to a Government Department resulting in you receiving a Survivor's Benefit following the death of your husband in 2003.  You have no previous convictions. 

2.        Survivor's Benefit is paid to a claimant whose spouse or civil partner has died and is made up of a Survivor's Allowance payable for a year and thereafter a Survivor's Pension.  However, it is not to be paid where the claimant is in a relationship with a person that is like marriage or civil partnership.  In those circumstances the claimant ceases to be eligible for the benefit. 

3.        Your husband died on 7^th September 2003, and your claims commenced legitimately on 11^th September 2003.  You signed a claim form which contained a declaration to the effect that you knew you had to contact the Department if you began to cohabit.  In February 2013, in response to a letter from the Department asking if there had been a change in your circumstances and specifically if you had been cohabiting, you signed a declaration that you had not cohabited at any time whilst receiving the benefit and that you understood that you should tell the Department if this should change.  You provided a similar declaration in February 2015 to the effect that you had not cohabited at any time whilst receiving the Survivor's Pension.  Further confirmation was given by you in March 2019.  In fact you had been living with your partner Mr De Abreu since May 2004 and have received over £117,000 from that date. 

4.        When officers from the Department visited your home in June 2019 Mr De Abreu arrived and let them inside.  He had a set of keys and there were photographs of you and him and a card addressed to his "lovely wife", that is to say you.  He confirmed that you lived together at your home.  In interview in June 2019 you confirmed that you knew that you had to inform the Department if you got married but claimed that you did not know that you had to report the fact that you were living with someone else.  You said that you and Mr De Abreu shared all expenses, had a joint bank and that your relationship would not change if you were to marry.  You said that friends translated the change of circumstance document for you as they were in English, and we invite the Department to give consideration to issuing forms to claimants in languages that are commonly spoken other than English. 

5.        Today you have repaid nearly £16,000 to the Department, leaving over £101,000 outstanding.  The charge to which you have pleaded guilty reflects the period in which false statements were made by you between February 2013 and March 2019.  During this period the sum of £52,380 was obtained by you fraudulently.  This was a valid claim which became a fraudulent one. 

6.        We give you credit for your plea, your previous good character and note that you are at low risk of reconviction.  Your plea was not entered at the first opportunity.  It is said on your behalf today that your guilty plea was not entered in the Magistrate's Court because you did not understand the underlying law or the concept of credit for a guilty plea.  Neither of those matters are a good reasons for not entering a plea and to receive full credit for plea such pleas must be entered in the Magistrate's Court.  

7.        We note that in February 2016, Mr De Abreu disclosed to the Department that he was living with you and that you were in receipt of Survivor's Pension and that you were one household.  You rely on this to the effect that any overpayment from February 2016 onwards should be disregarded for the purposes of assessing your criminality.  We do not accept this but do accept that you and he were open about your living arrangements.  You have been working as a cleaner for the past 12 years and your employers have said that you are reliable and trustworthy.  So, although you may have wrongfully received over £117,000 you only received funds in a criminal context, that is to say as a consequence of knowingly making false statements for the purposes of making a benefit, from 2013 to 2019 and the sum covered by the Indictment and obtained by you in this way is £52,380.  We sentence you on that basis and against the background that the sum lost by the Department is greater and that is a sum which you need to repay and have agreed to repay. 

8.        It is said that you are genuinely remorseful for your behaviour, and we accept that.  We are concerned about the delay that there has been in this case, that is delay for which you are not responsible.  We accept that the public health crisis has affected many cases, but we exclude delay caused by that matter as it is a fact of life and has affected many cases.  However, you were interviewed as long ago as the 14^th June 2019.  The overpayment was quantified by a determining officer on 20^th June 2019, and you reached a repayment agreement with the Department on 28^th June 2019.  It is not unreasonable for there to be delays in bringing cases to trial owing to the complexities that arise in the course of investigations, but the Crown accepted the Court's observation that there were significant periods in this case when it appears that little was done to progress matters.  Overall we find that the delay in this case was not excusable and should be taken into account when considering your sentence. 

9.        We are satisfied that this offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified.  Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime.  It is a fraud on the whole community including all genuine claimants.  But there are a number of circumstances in this case, none of which are exceptional in themselves which collectively warrant the Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment.  These are:-

(i)        Your positive previous good character.

(ii)       Your work record, you work 7 days a week in two jobs.

(iii)      Your guilty plea.

(iv)      The fact that you have been making repayments for 3 years without missing one and are soon to increase those repayments to £80 a week, and

(v)       The delay, you spent 2½ years not knowing whether or not you would face charges in this case.

10.      The sentence that we impose is one of 2 years' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.  The effect of this sentence is that if you commit any further offence punishable with imprisonment during the next 2 years then you will be sentenced for that further offence and in addition required to serve 2 years imprisonment unless the Court thinks it inappropriate that you do so when you are sentenced.

11.      We do not make any ancillary orders but have noted, as we have said, your indication that you will increase the rate of your repayments.

Authorities

AG v Galluzzi [2021] JRC 265. 

AG v Browne [2018] JRC 070. 

AG v Good and Moody [2015] JRC 027. 

AG v Such [2012] JRC 155. 

Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462.