"He never lived with me, he was there for the children"

Friday 23 February 2018

A couple charged with fraudulently claiming more than £160,000 in income support claim they only shared the same property to help with child care.

Delia Jose Vieira Gaspar Browne (40) and Kenneth Martin Patrick Browne (50) are accused of failing to disclose they were living together while Mrs Browne was receiving income support from 2007 to 2016, on the basis that she was single with a young family.

The couple have this week faced a Royal Court trial, with Mrs Brown defending a charge of “knowingly furnishing false information… with intent to obtain an award" and one charge of "failing to notify a change of circumstances." Mr Browne is charged with "aiding and abetting the commission of an offence." They deny the charges.

As the pair gave evidence yesterday, Mrs Browne revealed that Mr Browne would stay at her house six or seven nights a week because she was working overnight, and that he had stayed at her house while he was sick. But she claimed: "He never lived with me, he was there for the children."

When Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit put to her that she had lied about Mr Browne's financial contribution to the household, saying it was a lot more than £200, she said that he would only make extra payments if she needed it, not every month.

Asked why Mr Browne said they were only separated for four years, she said he wanted to come back but, "given the circumstances with his drinking, I wouldn’t take him back." The Crown Advocate then said: "The only people you told about your separation is Social security. You didn’t tell anyone else because it wasn’t true." She denied this, saying it was no one else's business to know.

Mr Browne claimed that they kept their separation quiet because "it would have got back to the children.” Quizzed over why he did not list his address as his former family home on forms despite spending most nights there, he said: "In my mind I wasn’t living there [family home]... I was only there to look after the children. I was living there, but not in a marriage."

Pictured: Mr and Mrs Browne are accused of having fraudulently claimed £160,000 in income support, and standing trial in Jersey's Royal Court.

Closing for the prosecution,  the Crown Advocate said that it was clear Mrs Browne had played down Mr Browne's financial contributions, which she said amounted to no more than £200 in maintenance, with Mr Browne deducting any extra amount at the end of the month. He said: "Their living arrangements and finances show they were living together as husband and wife." He said that the jurats should therefore conclude that Mr Browne was part of the household and that Mrs Browne presented a "misleading picture of her circumstances in order to obtain an award of income support she would otherwise not be entitled to." 

"This was not a mere oversight on a form. This was a deliberate course of fraudulent conduct on both their parts that continued over a period of time and enabled them to enjoy a higher standard of living at the expense of the public."

Defending Mrs Browne, Advocate Adam Harrison affirmed that the couple's separation was genuine and that there was "little by way of evidence to prove Mr Browne lived at the [family home] between 2007 and 2012." He added that Mrs Browne made “a clear distinction between living together as part of the same household and Mr Browne staying at the house to look after the children." 

He added that Mrs Browne had informed Social Security of her working hours so that her award could be adjusted. He said she also told them "albeit informally" that Mr Browne was looking after children and that the fact they didn't raise any inquiries "reinforced her view that her circumstances hadn’t changed." 

Defending Mr Browne, Advocate Jane Grace said that the forms filled in by Mrs Browne were "representative of the truth of their circumstances." "Whilst they remain married on paper, the relationship between them ended in 2007, due to his drinking she could no longer tolerate... Whilst they considered their marriage to be over they remained on good terms and remained devoted to their children."

Jurats Jane Ronge and Paul Nicolle are expected to return their verdict this afternoon, following directions given by the Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache.