Parmer, R. v

In sentencing for benefit fraud, the court should assess the total sum dishonestly obtained and the duration and repetition of the offending. A custodial sentence may be inevitable for sustained and deliberate false benefit claims.

However, a realistic entitlement to payments that could have been claimed honestly during the same period is a relevant mitigating consideration. It must not be treated as irrelevant merely because the offender did not make an honest claim. Compelling personal mitigation may also substantially reduce the appropriate custodial term.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Harrow Crown Court to five counts of making false statements or representations to obtain benefit. While in full-time employment, she made five forms falsely stating that she was not working and obtained benefits totalling £36,179.14 over about four and a half years.

She was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment concurrently on each count. By leave of the Single Judge, she appealed against sentence. She contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on her personal circumstances, limited repayments, and an estimated entitlement of about £19,000 in Working Tax Credit had she claimed it honestly.

1. Appeal allowed. The concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of four months’ imprisonment.

2. Custody was inevitable. The offending involved five deliberate false representations, repeated over about four and a half years, and the dishonest receipt of more than £36,000 of public money. Neither a non-custodial sentence nor a suspended custodial sentence was appropriate.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to approach the case by reference to the total amount dishonestly obtained. But the estimated Working Tax Credit of about £19,000, which the appellant could have claimed honestly during the same period, was relevant mitigation. The judge erred by treating that matter as irrelevant or as carrying little, if any, weight.

4. The court also gave substantial weight to the appellant’s compelling personal mitigation. She was of previous good character, expressed genuine shame and remorse, had a seriously adverse marital and financial background, and used the money to provide for her children rather than for luxury or self-indulgence. Taking those matters together, four months’ imprisonment was the appropriate sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent sentences of four months’ imprisonment.
• Harrow Crown Court: Following guilty pleas to five benefit-fraud counts, imposed concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment on 23 February 2006.