[2009]JRC212

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

13^th November 2009

The Attorney General

-v-

Lyndy Louise Manners

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

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Over a ten-month period in 2008, Manners claimed Income Support payments to which she was not entitled in the total sum of £13,214.78.  When initially making the claim for the said benefit, she had confirmed that she lived alone with her two children.  However, when her new partner subsequently moved in with her in February 2008, she intentionally neglected to inform the Social Security Department of the change in circumstances.  The joint income of the household after her partner moved in was such that she would have lost her entitlement to Income Support payments altogether.  Once the investigation had begun, she also failed to confirm the change when initially challenged by the Department.

The money fraudulently claimed was used to pay for every day expenses, and not luxuries.  By the time of sentence, she had successfully paid back over £3,000 of the appropriated money, and was continuing to make weekly repayments.  There was £10,120.92 ourstanding.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, co-operation, remorse, clean record, sole carer for her children after ex-partner left her.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Compensation order to pay Social Security the sum of £10,120.92 at no less than £40 per week sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court acknowledged that Manners had been naïve and had not benefited financially, reducing the Crown’s conclusions slightly and ordering that she complete 180 hours’ Community Service (the equivalent of 12 month’s imprisonment).

Compensation order to pay Social Security the sum of £10,120.92 at no less than £40 per week made.  

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Miss Manners, you have applied for benefit payments under the income support scheme and you have failed to tell the truth about the income available to the household of which you were a part when Mr Pethwick moved in.  You were given the opportunity of putting matters right a few months later but you made a deliberate mis-statement of the position at that time, and over a protracted period, you have effectively stolen from the public of Jersey a sum of over £13,000 and in doing so have let yourself down and let your children down.

2.        The Court has taken into account your good character and the references which you have passed up and your evident remorse.  We have also taken very much into account the voluntary repayments which you have made so far and the offer which has been made to repay the total amount as and when your partner’s inheritance comes through. 

3.        We have applied the principles of the case of Livingstone Stewart and Others (1987) Cr. App. R. (S) 135, which was cited with approval in Laverick v AG 1999/4. 

4.        Therefore, taking all the matters into account which your counsel has mentioned, we think that it is appropriate that we sentence you to a period of Community Service; we are going to reduce the hours of Community Service to 180 hours which is the equivalent of 12 months’ imprisonment.  If there is any difficulty in the performance of the Community Service Order you stand at risk of being brought back to Court and sentenced for the offence again.

5.        The Court is also going to make a Compensation Order in favour of the Minister for Social Security, in the sum of £10,120.92, which I understand to be the figure which is outstanding as of today.  And to order you to repay that sum at no less than £40 a week.  We would encourage you to repay it sooner and hope that the offer which has been made is duly carried out.

6.        In relation to the compensation order we would like to make it plain that if circumstances change for any reason there will be liberty to apply, Mrs Pearmain.

Authorities

Livingstone Stewart and Others (1987) 9 Cr. App. R. (S) 135.

Laverick v AG 1999/4.

AG-v-Reynolds & Tadier 1999/43.

AG-v-Blake 1995/24.