Inferior Number Sentencing - fraud.
[2021]JRC265
Royal Court
(Samedi)
22 October 2021
|
Before :
|
J. A. Clyde-Smith OBE, Commissioner, and
Jurats Ronge and Christensen
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Rebecca Anne Galluzzi
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
3 counts of:
|
Knowingly furnishing false information or
withholding material information with intent to obtain an award, contrary to
Article 16(a) of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 (Counts 1, 2 and
3).
|
Age: 40.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
In October 2012, the Defendant began
to receive Income Support. She told
the Customer and Local Services Department that her husband had left the family
home, leaving her to care for her three children.
During the period of her claim, from
October 2012 to May 2018, the Defendant submitted 25 change of circumstances applications,
notifying the Department of changes which may impact her benefit claim. However, she never declared that her
husband was part of the claimant household.
Over the seven years of the claim,
the Defendant lived in three properties. In 2015 she misinformed the Department
that her ex-husband would be on the lease as a guarantor for her new
accommodation. He is purported to
have signed a letter explaining he had done this due to her credit rating,
while the actual reason was that he was living there. All the records obtained from her
husband, including employment records, vehicle ownership and hire purchase
arrangements all cited her home address as his home address.
The Defendant was written to on 21st
May 2018, specifically asking if her husband was living with her. On 24th May 2018, she
contacted the Department to close her claim, stating that her husband was going
to be moving in with her to help with childcare.
The three counts differentiate
between each property that the Defendant lived in. The amount fraudulently
obtained in respect of each count is as follows:
Count 1: £50,374.82;
Count 2: £17,890.78;
Count 3: £80,734.34.
Thus, the total fraudulently
obtained was calculated as being £148,999.94.
This claim was the Defendant’s
second claim for Income Support. Her first claim was stopped in 2011 as it
transpired that she had failed to declare the change of circumstances that her
partner, now husband, had been living with her for a year. That overpayment was calculated as being £24,015.
In interview, the Defendant accepted
that her husband had been spending time at the house, but denied that he was
living there. She conceded that she
didn’t think they would be together forever and was scared her claim
would stop if she told the Department he was there. She didn’t think she was entitled
to the money ‘because of his income’.
Details of Mitigation:
The Defendant had the benefit of
guilty pleas, and was co-operative in interview. Difficult upbringing and has physical and
mental health issues, including a diagnosis of PTSD. Support of family and attempts to repay
some of the funds..
Previous Convictions:
The Defendant has eight previous convictions, mainly
historic and none relevant to these offences..
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
|
|
Count 2:
|
1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 3:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 3
years’ imprisonment.
No Compensation Order sought.
No Costs Order sought.
Crown does not seek an Order for
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1:
|
2 years’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
1 years’ imprisonment; concurrent.
|
|
Count 3.
|
2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total:
2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
No Compensation Order
made.
No Costs Order made.
Crown Advocate R. C. P. Pedley.
Advocate E. L. Burns for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE commissioner:
1.
The
Defendant stands to be sentenced for three counts of benefit fraud committed
between the 10th March 2012 and the 9th October 2019, by
which she received nearly £150,000 to which she was not entitled. Over this period, she withheld
information that her husband was living in the family home and providing
financial support.
2.
The Court
has been referred by Crown Advocate Pedley, to the
sentencing principles set out in the case of R v Graham and Whatley
[2005] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 115 but not to the tariffs, and we agree with his
response to the relevant considerations as follows:
(i)
Plea.
The Defendant has pleaded guilty to all three counts on indictment.
(ii) The amount involved and the length of time
the offending continued.
The Defendant fraudulently obtained
£148,999.94 in Income Support payments. The offending of the three counts
occurred over seven years and seven months between 2012 and 2019.
(iii) The circumstances in which the offending
began.
The offending results from the
Defendant’s failure to inform the Department that her husband was living with
her and contributing to the family at all three addresses in which they lived. The Defendant states that at the
beginning of the claim her husband had moved out of the family home. There is evidence that he had moved out
previously but had moved back in prior to the claim being made.
(iv) The use to which the money was put.
It is not clear how the money was used, but
the family lifestyle, was not extravagant. The Defendant’s husband purchased
high-value items (as seen from PowerHouse documents),
including phones, tablets and games consoles, but this appears to be from his
legitimate earnings.
(v) Previous character.
The Defendant has eight previous
convictions, five of which were dealt with by the Parish Hall whilst she was a youth,
and we agree with the Crown that they have little bearing on the case.
She did, however, avoid prosecution for
fraudulently obtaining just over £24,000 between the 4th November 2010
and the 4th November 2011. The circumstances
of this fraud were the same, in that she failed to notify the Department that
she was living with her husband who was then her partner at the time.
(vi) Matters special to the defendant, such as
illness, disability, family difficulties.
The Defendant has three children aged 20,
16 and 10. The impact on her youngest
child in particular, aged 10 is desperately unfortunate, but it is frequently
the case sadly that offenders of this type have families who inevitably suffer
the consequences.
(vii) Any voluntary repayment of the amounts
overpaid.
The Defendant has repaid £5,083.18 to
date and there is still £143,916.76 outstanding. She has entered into a repayment program
that will take effect after her release.
(viii) The need for deterrence.
We agree with the Crown that in a small
jurisdiction benefit fraud of this magnitude can have a more serious impact
than it would in a larger jurisdiction and is often described as a fraud on us
all.
3.
We are
reminded of what the Court said in the case of Attorney General v Good and
Moody [2015] JRC 027:
“Now, it has been said before
and I am going to say it again, that income support fraud is extremely serious.
The legislature lays down a maximum of 7 years’ imprisonment which shows
how seriously the legislature treats it and it is, for the absolute avoidance
of doubt, as bad a fraud as any other form of fraud. You are cheating every
member of our community by taking monies to which you are not entitled. It is
an affront to everybody who is just as badly off as you are but they do not
cheat and they tell the truth. It is an affront to everybody who pays their
contributions into the fund because they rely on all those who are claiming
benefits to claim according to the rules and ensure they do not claim benefits
that they should not have… It
is not only the obvious sentence that you should go to prison - you should go
to prison. …”
4.
In that
particular case a prison sentence was avoided.
5.
Taking
into account all of the mitigation available to the Defendant, the Crown move
for a total sentence of 3 years. We
have given consideration as we must to whether a sentence of imprisonment is
necessary or whether the case can be dealt with by community service as it was
in Attorney General v Turner [2012] JRC 147 and Attorney General v
Good and Moody, cases involving much smaller sums, or possibly by suspended
sentence as imposed by the Court in Attorney General v Such [2012] JRC
155, a case were the Defendant had the care of a six-year-old child.
6.
The Crown
had moved for a sentence of three years which does equate to the maximum period
for which community service can be ordered, and so community service is an
alternative to a sentence of imprisonment.
The power to suspend a sentence is limited to terms of imprisonment, not
exceeding two years and as we have just stated the Crown are moving for a
sentence of three years.
7.
We have
given very careful consideration to the mitigation powerfully put forward by
Advocate Burns, some of it we have already covered, but it includes of course the
Defendant’s guilty plea, her co-operation, her letter of remorse which we
find to be a genuine expression of her feelings, her background and
difficulties, the support of her family, many of whom are here in Court and the
efforts that she has made before being placed in custody to repay.
8.
We have
great sympathy with the impact of this offending upon the family, but the
difficulty with this case is the sheer duration of the offending, nearly seven
and a half years, and the amounts involved nearly £150,000, the largest
benefit fraud to date.
9.
Furthermore,
as we have just stated this happened before between 2010 and 2011 and although
not charged with an offence resulting from that, the Defendant must have known
perfectly well what she was doing over the period of this offending. Indeed, this offending started within
months, and during the period of this offending she filed some 25 changes of
circumstances making no mention at all of this change, and the fact that her
husband was living in the family home. As the Court said, in AG v Such
and it is worth repeating this quote:
“In effect, every time a
payment of income support is made, the original application is made again and
that is why the rule about disclosure of any change of circumstances is so
important.”
10. In our view, after careful consideration, this
case is just too serious to warrant a community outcome. This is not a victimless crime; it is a
fraud on everyone on the community.
We are however in a position to reduce somewhat the conclusions of the
Crown. We think those conclusions
were correct and properly moved for, but because of the circumstances of the
Defendant and the family we are going to reduce them as an act of mercy.
11. In terms of the sentence: Count 1, you are
sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. Count 2, to 1 years’ imprisonment,
concurrent. Count 3, to 2
years’ 6 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
12. That makes a total of 2 years and 6
months’ imprisonment
Authorities
Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007.
R v Graham and
Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 115.
AG
v Good and Moody [2015] JRC 027.
AG
v Turner [2012] JRC 147.
AG
v Such [2012] JRC 155