Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Bradshaw [2017] JRC 119 (28 July 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The seriousness, duration, and amount involved in the fraud outweigh the mitigating factors, including mental health issues, making a custodial sentence unavoidable but reduced in length.

Court disposition

custodial sentence imposed

Orders

  • 2 years' imprisonment on Count 1
  • 6 months' imprisonment on Count 2, concurrent
  • 6 months' imprisonment on Count 3, concurrent
  • No compensation order imposed

02

Material facts

Parties

Unknown (Defendant)

Defendant

Attorney General (Prosecution)

Prosecution

Amounts and remedies

  • Total Amount Defrauded: GBP 103,445.87
  • Amount Repaid: GBP 63,799.91
  • Outstanding Debt: GBP 37,533.78

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, provided references, and submitted evidence of chronic depression and a psychological report indicating imprisonment would adversely affect her mental health.
Respondent
The prosecution emphasized the seriousness, duration, and amount of the fraud, arguing for a deterrent custodial sentence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115; AG-v-Morin [2010] JRC 217D

    Sentencing for social security fraud must reflect seriousness, duration, and amount defrauded, with deterrence as a key consideration.

  2. 02

    AG-v-McDonald [2014] JRC 100

    Mental health and mitigation may reduce but not necessarily avoid custody for serious offences.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The seriousness, duration, and amount involved in the fraud outweigh the mitigating factors, including mental health issues, making a custodial sentence unavoidable but reduced in length.

Obiter and limits

  • Cheating the public is no different in principle from theft and undermines public confidence in government social security systems.

Court disposition

custodial sentence imposed

  • 2 years' imprisonment on Count 1
  • 6 months' imprisonment on Count 2, concurrent
  • 6 months' imprisonment on Count 3, concurrent
  • No compensation order imposed

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2017] JRC 119

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The defendant is to be sentenced for three counts of social security fraud carried out between 2008 and 2016 by which £102,788.37 was obtained under Count 1 and much smaller sums under Counts 2 and 3 giving rise to a debt of £103,445.87, of which £63,799.91 have been repaid leaving £37,533.78 outstanding. At the current rate of repayments taken from the defendant's income support payments this debt will not be repaid now until February 2033.

2. The fraud involves the non-disclosure of a property in Wales inherited from the defendant's mother and numerous bank accounts and bonds. This is the largest sum defrauded from Social Security and the most prolonged period of offending. We have been taken through the sentencing principles set out in the case of R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115 adopted by this Court in AG-v-Morin [2010] JRC 217D .

3. The defendant is assessed at a low risk of reconviction and she has effectively no record. In terms of mitigation she has pleaded guilty. We have a letter of remorse from her and other letters and references which we have taken into account. She has a significant history of chronic depression going back many years. We have had a psychological report from Doctor Engelbrecht which says that this may have impacted upon her ability to make decision. Doctor Engelbrecht also advises that imprisonment will impact adversely on her mental health. The issue for us is whether this is sufficient to overcome the need to impose a deterrent sentence for offending which has been described in this way in the case of AG-v-Couillard [2011] JRC 179A : 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" 4. In

the case of AG-v-McDonald [2014] JRC 100 the court on the facts there felt able to avoid custody for a social security fraud just under £50,000 because the defendant had been diagnosed with a recurrent depressive disorder and additional psychological problems. He had just been admitted to Orchard House on an emergency basis and advice received by the court was to the effect that a sentence of imprisonment would have a very detrimental effect on him. The defendant in this case also has a formal diagnosis of recurrent depressive disorder but the circumstances of every diagnosis and of every patient and the impact upon them will be different. In this case Doctor Engelbrecht has advised that the defendant currently does not require hospital treatment. We have considered the matter very carefully but in our view the duration of this fraud, the frequency of it and the amounts involved are just too serious for us to avoid a custodial outcome. There was no issue as to the defendant's cognitive ability when she filed these forms on a regular basis and over these many years she was actively managing these bank accounts and bonds which she had not disclosed. However, in the light of her circumstances we do feel able to reduce the sentence sought.

5. On Count 1 you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, and on Count 3; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 2 years' imprisonment.

6. We are not going to impose a Compensation Order. Authorities R-v-Graham and Whatley [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 115 . AG-v-Morin [2010] JRC 217D . AG-v-Couillard [2011] JRC 179A . AG-v-McDonald and Hughes [2014] JRC 100. AG-v-Good and Moody [2015] JRC 027 . AG-v-Cocks [2014] JRC 142A . AG-v-McLoughlin [2012] JRC 179 . Page Last Updated: 14 Sep 2017 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

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

Case cited

AG-v-Morin [2010] JRC 217D

Case cited

AG-v-Couillard [2011] JRC 179A

Case cited

AG-v-McDonald and Hughes [2014] JRC 100

Case cited

AG-v-Good and Moody [2015] JRC 027

Case cited

AG-v-Cocks [2014] JRC 142A

Case cited

AG-v-McLoughlin [2012] JRC 179

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.