Woman gets 2.5 years in jail for £75k benefits fraud

Tuesday 17 April 2018

A 40-year-old woman who fraudulently claimed over £75,760 in income support has been sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison - but won't be asked to pay the money back yet because she doesn't have the means to pay it.

Delia Jose Vieira Gaspar Browne was charged following an anonymous tip-off, and convicted in February after a trial in the Royal Court.

Outlining the facts, Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit told the Court that Browne was married to Kenneth Browne, who faced a charge of "aiding and abetting the commission of an offence" in the same trial and was acquitted, and with whom she had two children, aged 11 and 13.

The Crown Advocate said that Browne first applied for Income Support in September 2007 as a stay-at-home mum with two children under five. On her form, she did not declare any adults living in the house and indicated her marital status as 'separated.' She declared that Mr Browne was paying £200 a month in maintenance payments. Her claim was successful and she first received Income Support in January 2008. 

The Court heard that, during the period of her claim, Browne advised the Social Security Department of changes in her circumstances, including changes to her work pattern and salary, on 29 occasions. However, she never declared that Mr Browne was part of the household.

In December 2015, the Social Security Department received an anonymous tip-off via the fraud reporting hotline that Mr Browne was living with Mrs Browne. 

Pictured: The Social Security Department was alerted to Browne's living arrangements with her husband via an anonymous tip-off.

During her interview, Browne said that Mr Browne would come round to her house every day to help look after the children. She said he had his own keys, would sleep in her bed when she worked night shifts, helped get the children ready for school, kept clothes at the house, which she would sometimes wash for him and would help with housework and odd jobs. 

However, she denied he was living with them - something she maintained during the trial. 

Social Security officers concluded that Mr Browne was living with Browne since the beginning of her claim and the total overpayment was £162,614. However, Jurats Jane Rouge and Paul Nicolle, who convicted Browne, said she did not necessarily have criminal intent until 2012. They also noted that she should have notified the Social Security Department that Mr Browne had joined the household when he sub-let his flat and again from March 2012. Therefore, the total amount fraudulently obtained was brought down to £75,760.

Crown Advocate Maletroit told the Court that it was not clear "what the money was spent on but that it increased the household income and the family’s standard of living." He said that Browne was of previous good character and that she had already repaid £4,100 of the overpayment. 

Pictured: Social Security Officers concluded that the amount Browne had fraudulently claimed was £162,614.

He said that a fraud case like Browne's had "more magnitude" in a small jurisdiction like Jersey adding that the amount involved was the "second largest sum defrauded from the Social Security Department." He added that it was particularly important to deter any future fraud.

He said the Court should be concerned by Browne's lack of remorse or insight into her offending, as she maintains she did not intentionally lie as she and her husband were not together as a couple - and recommended a four-year prison sentence. No compensation order was made as Crown Advocate Maletroit said Browne didn't have the means to pay.

Advocate Adam Harrison, who was defending Browne, said she understood the seriousness of the offences. He said she had a number of references who spoke of her qualities as well as a good work record. The Court heard that Browne's employer praised "her professionalism and willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty in a challenging role."

Advocate Harrison said the Crown's conclusions were too high and urged the Court to reduce the sentence. He added that Browne had said she intended to use her time in prison as productively as possible and that, being a "naturally industrious person" she intended to start working as soon as possible. 

Pictured: Advocate Adam Harrison defended Delia Browne.

The Court, presided over by Bailiff Sir William Bailhache, who was sitting with Jurats Elizabeth Dulake, Robert Christensen, Jane Ronge, Paul Nicolle, Collette Crill and Charles Blampied, sentenced Browne to two-and-a-half years in prison. Handing out the sentence, the Bailiff said the Court accepted that when Browne first made her claim, she did did not see her husband as part of the household. He added that Browne may have seen her marital relationship as separated but that it was not the basis on which the Social Security Department made their decision and she knew that.

He said the offence had to be marked by a period of custody as an income support fraud was serious. He told Browne that the Court could see she was a "caring and loving mother" who relates to other people in the community "in an admirable way", but that it was not translated in the way she had interacted with Social Security by fraudulently claiming income support. He said: "Taking money from Income Support which you are not entitled to is as bad a fraud as any."

Following the sentencing, Stephen Jackson, Operations Director at Social Security, said the outcome of the court case was "testament to the hard work of the Enforcement team at Social Security and the detailed work they have undertaken under many months to ensure that public money is not awarded to people who are not entitled to it."

"The time taken to conclude an investigation such as this varies depending on the nature and complexity of the case. A simple case may be a few hours’ work, but something much more complex, and of a greater monetary value, such as this, that could be referred for criminal prosecution, can take months of detailed work from beginning to end. Often leads are identified as genuine mistakes from claimants rather than fraud and these can be quickly rectified and repayment arranged. However, in the event that fraud is suspected investigations are carried out."

While the Crown Advocate didn't ask for a compensation order in Court, the Social Security Department has confirmed they will make every effort to ensure the money is repaid by taking a civil action against Browne, when she is released from prison. They will attempt to recover the whole £162,000 they say Browne fraudulently claimed.