The investigation took two years. On his benefit forms, he had claimed he could not stand for more than 30 minutes or walk more than 400 yards without feeling severe discomfort. Lloyd said the issue had been an oversight on his behalf, and that he accepted he should have declared he was receiving an income from his work.
The defence said that he lived off a £100 per week war pension, and now refused to claim any of the benefits he would be legally entitled to because of the trouble caused by this case.
Magistrates sentenced him to a 12-month community order, to include 12 months supervision. He was also ordered to pay the money back, as well as £75 prosecution costs.
- The paper starts its report by noting that he "has escaped a prison sentence" - but under the present sentencing régime there was never any prospect of jail.
These people do it for the money. So hit them in the pocket. It was money that motivated them, and a financial penalty will help to deter them.
People convicted of benefit fraud who don't receive a custodial sentence should have to do unpaid work.
Benefit thieves should also have to repay twice what they've stolen, and should not be eligible for any further benefits – including tax credits - until they have. A confiscation order should be automatic and immediate.
If you don't punish people who are convicted of an easy crime, the offence will continue to look attractive.
Theresa May, please note. Some local authorities think benefit fraud costs each household £80-£100 a year. It's probably at least £150-£175.
1 comments:
I have been following your blog on Benefit Fraud for sometime, due mainly to the fact that I investigated benefit fraud for 20 years and prosecuting benefit fraudstaers for the last 8 years. I can say from experience that more benefit fraudsters are being prosecuted than there was when I started prosecuting and sentences have got heavier, due mainly to the increase of cases coming before the courts. I suggest that you have a look at the Magistrates Sentencing Guidelines, they reflect the seriousness of the offences, but of course the Magistrates do have leeway based on circumstances surrounding the 'fraud'.
Post a Comment