BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Rodridges [2024] JRC 194 (13 September 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_194.html Cite as: [2024] JRC 194 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
Sir Timothy Le Cocq, Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Le Cornu |
The Attorney General
-v-
Ligia Maria Nobrega Rodrigues
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Withholding material information with intent to obtain an award, contrary to Article 16(a) of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Failing to notify a change of circumstances to the Social Security Department, contrary to Article 16(c) of the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 (Count 2). |
Age: 51.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 6 April 2011, the Defendant completed her Income Support application form ("the Form") which she signed and submitted to the Social Security Department ("the Department") on 18 April 2011. On 19 September 2019, the Defendant closed her claim to Income Support ("IS") citing in a signed and written statement that her business was getting better and that her ex-husband would assist financially if she and her daughter were struggling financially.
Following information received in November 2019, the Defendant's claim for IS was investigated. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Department discovered that the Defendant had withheld material information with intent to obtain an award from the outset of her claim, namely she held more than two bank accounts and half-owned a property in Madeira valued at €63,375.64, all the while she was claiming Income Support. Upon the Defendant's divorce from her husband, which became final and absolute on 2 September 2013, the Defendant would have received at least half of the value of this property, if she had sold it.
On 6 October 2022 the Defendant attended the Department and provided a signed letter in which she admitted she had received a letter and a cheque for £50,000 from a third party. The Defendant subsequently signed bank disclosure authorities and on review of the Defendant's bank statements (consisting of both declared and undeclared bank accounts [Count 1]), this showed that the Defendant had deposited a £50,000 cheque into her account on 31 August 2017 (Count 2). The Defendant then transferred the monies through her various bank accounts before sending the amount (in two transactions) to her sister.
On 22 March 2023, the Defendant attended the Department for a meeting and was provided with an overpayment letter and instalment plan. On 2 May 2023, the Defendant signed the instalment agreement and agreed to make repayments.
This deliberate failure to disclose and withhold information resulted in the Defendant receiving £49,155.20 in IS, which she was not entitled to.
The Defendant was interviewed by the Department on 12 September 2023 to which she gave mostly "no comment" answers. As of 30 August 2024, the Defendant had repaid £7,500 of the outstanding £49,155.20.
Details of Mitigation:
Early guilty pleas, good character, vulnerable 17-year-old daughter and some investigatory delay.
Previous Convictions:
One historic conviction for breach of the peace but treated as effective good character.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
16 months' imprisonment. |
|
Count 2: |
16 months' imprisonment. |
Total: 16 months' imprisonment.
Recommendation for deportation order not sought.
Order for compensation not sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusion granted.
Crown Advocate L. Sette for His Majesty's Attorney General.
Advocate G. D. Emmanuel for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE bailiff:
1. We will give further reasons for this decision in due course.
2. This was a serious and prolonged offence, the victim of which is the Public of the Island and those who pay their taxes. The presumption for such an offence is one of custody and we have considered the matter carefully, but we cannot see any exceptional circumstances or other circumstances which would cause us to depart from that conclusion.
3. Accordingly, and we think that the Crown has got the tariff here correct, you are sentenced with regard to Count 1 sixteen months' imprisonment, with regard to Count 2, sixteen months' imprisonment concurrent, making a total of sixteen months' imprisonment.
4. We do not make any recommendation for deportation.
