Benefit Fraudster Sentenced - Right Decision?

[hc4361]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317744/Benefits-fraudster-claimed-54-000-despite-having-112-000-bank-SPARED-prison.html

I think it was the right decision. He has to pay all the money back, pay a relatively small fine, do 200 hours community service - and live amongst his neighbours and of course he has lost his benefits.
His insurance premiums will increase hugely (if he can get it, having been done for fraud) and it saves the taxpayer thousands of pounds by keeping him out of prison.

If you were the magistrate, would you have sent him to prison?

[anneasquith]

yes

[Canary42]

You make a good point about cost to the taxpayer which I think on balance would sway me against imposing a prison sentence.

[MadMen]

Oh, well that's a good deterrent for anyone else falsely claiming benefits!

[starone]

Definitely prison. Wish they still did hard labour!

[Prudie]

At the very least I'd have fined him way more. Basically he gets to do 6 weeks community service that a lot of decent people do voluntarily and has had a 6 year loan from the government at about 6% interest - nice if you can get it.

[Kevink]

When contemplating committing a fraud, it makes sense to weigh up the risks against the potential gains. If all you risk is having to return the dosh and do a bit of community service against potential gains of possibly 100s of thousands (after all, if he hadn't been caught, he'd still be claiming) then where is the deterrent?

[sara3]

I'm surprised it wasn't in crown court.

what sentence would he have deserved had he stolen £54k from anywhere else?

[sara3]

imagine stealing £54k, and your punishment was to have to give it back.. it's laughable.

[MadMen]

I understand hc4361's point about saving the taxpayer money, but it just kind of takes the piss a bit. It's nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
I think a bigger fine and far more hours spent doing community service would have been a better, fairer, punishment.

[society]

He resembles noooooby

[New Judge]

Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines are quite clear:

Where the claim was fraudulent from the outset, and either:

• fraud carried out over a significant period of time or
• multiple frauds

and

Value £20,000 to less than £100,000

(all of which seems to fit the offence committed by Mr Carter)

A sentencing range of 18 weeks custody to Crown Court should be considered.

With a fraud value of >£50k it seems that a sentence in excess of 26 weeks (and hence Crown Court for sentencing) would be appropriate. Certainly the sentence handed down seems unduly lenient. The notion that he should be spared custody to save money does not hold water. The offence is serious and certainly should have attracted custody. More details of the sentencing guidelines are available on page 62d here:

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/MCSG_Update9_October_2012.pdf

[joggerjayne]

I suppose it's easy when you're relatively affluent to look harshly on people like that.

But I wonder how desperate people can get sometimes?

[seadogg]

Is paying the money back backed by a custodial penalty for default in such cases?

[New Judge]

This chap was hardly desperate, jayne. He had £112k in the bank and his only desperation was probably to avoid having that fact discovered.

[ToraToraTora]

your cost arguments are compelling but crime and punishment should not be based on cost. Personally I'd like to see him spend a few weeks in the slammer too.

[bazwillrun]

http://news.sky.com/story/1084598/deal-or-no-deal-winner-in-benefit-fraud

another classic case of outright theft and deception , but no punishment of any real worth , just community service.

laughable

[youngmafbog]

He should have been jailed. He had plenty of money and had committed it over a long peirod of time.

Yet more wishy washy liberal sentencing. No wonder the country is in a mess.

The cost does not come into it. By dishing out sentences like this more people will take a chance so the cost is actually greater than bqanging him up.

If we had proper jails it would not cost that much anyway.