Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/20

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

1^st February, 2000

 

Before:    F.C. Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff and

                                                      Jurats Querée, Bullen,

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

David Julian Lelliot

 

 

 

6 counts of:   fraud.

 

Age:    33.

 

Plea:     Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

 

The defendant defrauded the total sum of £2,037.70 from the Social Security Committee over intermittent periods straddling 31 months.  Total amount of days illegally claimed benefit whilst working = 148.  Defendant had been claiming sickness/invalidity benefit continuously since 9^th October, 1995.  Claim was genuine.  Medical certificates cited "nervous illness" and "alcoholism" .  From time to time the defendant worked on a temporary basis as a labourer, potato picker, farm produce packer, and cleaner.   Offence came to light following a routine survey showing that the defendant received benefit but his name featured on employer's returns of contributions paid.  Initially was unco-operative at interview, then attended second interview and made full and frank admissions.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Each job he held was temporary lasting on average 2 to 4 weeks.  Psychiatric report noted a low IQ, deprived childhood, episodes of depression and excessive use of alcohol.  Several brief admissions to acute psychiatric wards.  Problems with gambling.  Presently being treated as outpatient.  Defendant has 6 year relationship and the couple had an infant child.  Co-habitee incapable for caring for the child on her own.  Children's Service report noted that defendant was "an excellent parent" and was the infant's primary carer.  Custodial sentence would have devastating effect on family,  infant being taken into care and loss of tenancy of States flat.  Defendant indicated willing to offer £10 per week to the Department by way of restitution.:  brought £20 in cash with him to Court.

 

Previous Convictions:    Bad record commencing 1980 when defendant aged 14.  Several convictions for dishonesty.

 

Conclusions:   In the particular circumstances of the defendant Crown took view no useful purpose would be served by imprisonment which would destroy family unit.  Crown supported probation officer's recommendation of probation order coupled with attendance on SMART programme and alcohol study group.  Compensation order in the sum of £2,037.70, or one months' imprisonment in default.

                                                                                                   

Sentence & Observations of Court:  

 

Followed conclusions of Crown.  Counts 1 to 6:  2 year's probation attendance at SMART course organised so as not to interfere with the care of the infant.  May be necessary to attend the alcohol study group.  Court noted defendant's willingness to pay back that which he had defrauded.  Did not see there was any reasonable hope of him being able to do so but if he wished to make voluntarily contributions he could.  Department could sue for civil debt if it felt appropriate.  Court declined to make contribution order.

 

 

 

                                                Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate;

                                          Advocate Mrs J. Grace,  for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:   Time and again this Court has said that Social Security fraud is a deception on every single person who diligently pays their social security contributions into the fund.

 

We need also to say this: it is recognised by Social Security that there may be situations where a person undertakes work sporadically, and there is a precedent for allowing claimants on relief to pay back any over payment.   As Crown Advocate Sharpe has said, that procedure relies entirely on the honesty and co-operation of the claimant, but its great advantage is that it avoids the steps towards prosecution.

 

The defendant has been in receipt of incapacity benefit for approximately five years; while working sporadically for various firms during that time, however,  he continued to submit successive certificates in respect of his claim.

 

Eventually, after initial denials, the defendant made a clean breast of the matter and,  as reported by his probation officer,  he said that each job he held was temporary, lasting on average two or four weeks.   Had any of these jobs been permanent, he assures me he would have immediately notified Social Security.  That, of course,  is not the point.

 

Lelliot has a bad record, but it must be said that he made no attempt to conceal the fraud by using a false name or social security number.   This case is made particular by the special facts.   The defendant is father to an infant son, Fraser. The probation report which we have read very carefully with the psychologist's report, notes the financial difficulties the family faces because the defendants co-habitee and the mother of  Fraser, had drinking problems herself, but these have been exacerbated particularly by this prosecution, and it would now seem that the defendant is the child's main carer.

 

The report states this:

 

"The impact of a custodial sentence on Mr Lelliot would therefore be even more devastating than outlined in the report.   Mrs Mallet..." that is the co-habitee - "...is not capable of looking after Fraser, and this would result in Fraser being taken into care by the Children's Service".  The other consequences that would undoubtedly follow would be that they would lose the tenancy of their States flat.  Mr Lelliot would then be homeless on release, and would of course not be able to resume responsibility for Fraser whom he appears to look after very well".

 

This is a difficult case, but we are going to follow the conclusions of the Probation Service, and we are going to sentence you to two years' probation.   Stand up please if you would.   You are placed on probation for 2 years and you are going to have to attend the SMART course, and the Probation Service will organise that so that the care of Fraser is not jeopardised in any way.   Now that may also make it necessary for you to attend the Alcohol Study Group.

 

You owe £2,037.70 to Social Security.   We note that you want to repay it, and in fact that your Advocate has tendered £20 in cash this morning, as a token of your intention.  We have every reason to doubt that there is any realistic hope of your  doing so, when we look at your finances, so we are going to say this: if you want to make a voluntary contribution to pay back what you have taken from the fund, we will not discourage you from doing it.   If the Department feels that it is essential, there is,  of course,  provision for a civil action for debt, however we are not going to pursue that aspect.

 

Authorities

 

 

A.G -v- Laverick (11^th January, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G -v- Fitzsimmons (1^st October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.