Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC179A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

16 September 2011

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Deputy Bailiff., Q. C. and Jurats Morgan and Kerley

The Attorney General

-v-

David Robert Couillard

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

2 counts of:

Knowingly furnishing false information to the Social Security Department, contrary to Article 16(a) of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 (Counts 1 and 3).

Age:  52.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In May 2009, Couillard, acting as agent for his elderly mother who was suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, made an application for income support in order to fund her move to residential care.  In completing the initial application form Couillard failed to declare the capital and income from a Skandia Life Investment held by Mrs Couillard.  As a result Mrs Couillard was awarded payments of over £3,200 per month. 

Following an investigation by Social Security a review form was issued in July 2010.  Couillard also completed this form, and again omitting the Skandia Life Investment.  He also signed a declaration that there had been no change in circumstances since the last application. 

Couillard was then interviewed by officers from the Social Security Department.  He admitted that he knew of the Skandia Life Investment income and that someone had advised him to declare it.  However he claimed that his mother had always intended to give the money to his children (his mother's grandchildren), and so together they had decided not to declare it.  He also claimed he might not have read the form properly. 

Couillard admitted that his mother had helped his family financially for years, and said that he needed his mother's money to support his family.  Numerous cheques had been written by Couillard on her account whilst she was in receipt of the fraudulently obtained benefit, many for Couillard's family's day to day expenses.  He initially claimed that some had been used to meet rent arrears and that his mother had bought a car for the family for £5,800.  However when he was shown copies of the cheques he admitted that the cheque for £5,800 had been used to buy an engine for a boat.  He admitted that a further cheque for £1,000 had been used to purchase the boat itself.  Couillard maintained that the boat was not a luxury item and could not explain a number of further cheques and cash withdrawals. 

A total of £27,000 income from the Skandia Life Investment was received during the relevant period.  It was calculated that the capital value of the asset was approximately £47,000 at the time of the initial application.  This was far in excess of the £13,706 allowed for a single person claiming financial assistance.  Had Mrs Couillard's investment been used to pay for her care, the total would not have fallen below that figure until September 2010.  It followed that for the whole of the award period Mrs Couillard was not in fact entitled to any income support.  The total amount overpaid was therefore £22,900.39.  Couillard had agreed to pay Social Security back at a rate of £25 per week, although it was noted that it will take more than 17½ years to repay the debt at this rate. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and remorse; was suffering from depression at the time of the initial application though this had been addressed during the period of offending; low risk of re-offending. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant; treated as of good character. 

Conclusions:

The Crown submitted that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a non-custodial sentence and that in fact there were exceptional aggravating features. 

Count 1:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  18 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Benefit fraud is offensive; most Islanders pay what they should pay and claim what they should claim.  Fraud means people no longer felt confident in the system. 

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  12 months' imprisonment. 

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

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced for the offence of knowingly furnishing false information to the Social Security Department on two occasions, the first between 1^st April, 2009 and 1^st September, 2009, and the second between 1^st August, 2010, and 17^th September, 2010.  As a result of the misrepresentation which you made to the Social Security Department, your mother received an overpayment of income support to the extent of approximately £22,900.  That money was available to you in the form of payments from your mother's account for your benefit or for the benefit of your family.  Some of the money appears to have been spent on a boat; other on other expenses which you have incurred.  The offence carries a maximum sentence of 7 years' imprisonment. 

2.        Benefit fraud is offensive.  Most Islanders pay what they should pay into the funds which the Island needs, and claim what they should claim; and it is when people step outside those arrangements that the contract which government makes with the citizens of the Island, falls down.  People no longer feel confident about the money that they pay in if they think that their money is being abused, and had you broken into somebody's house and stolen this sum of money, there is no question that the Court would have looked at it very seriously indeed and been looking at a custodial sentence.  Cheating the public is really no different in principle and for these reasons we think that, difficult as the circumstances of your case are, a custodial sentence is inevitable.  We found no exceptional circumstances. 

3.        We give you full credit for your guilty plea and we appreciate the very proper expressions of shame and remorse which you have expressed.  You have made a very bad mistake and we accept that you feel sorry about it.  We certainly take into account the voluntary repayments which you have made so far and, as it seems to us the debt is primarily that of your mother's and not yours, we probably do not expect those payments to continue.  We note that the money may not have been spent in all respects on luxury items, but it was not spent on essentials or necessaries either. 

4.        Taking all those matters into account, we think the right sentence is one of 12 months' imprisonment and so we impose that sentence concurrently on both counts.  That makes a total of 12 months. 

Authorities

AG-v-Morin [2010] JRC 217D.

R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115.

AG-v-Whelan [2011] JRC 159A.

AG-v-Gallagher [2011] JRC 129.

AG-v-Morton [2007] JRC 127.

AG-v-Payne 1999/220.