Temple, R v

In sentencing benefit fraud, the amount of public money wrongly obtained and the duration of the offending are substantial aggravating features. The court must also assess the manner in which the fraud began, its sophistication, the offender’s use of the money, a guilty plea, previous record, health and family circumstances.

Those factors may justify immediate custody, but the sentence must remain proportionate to the whole case. Sentencing guidance provides a starting point, not a substitute for an individual assessment of aggravation and mitigation.

R v Temple was an appeal against a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment imposed at Chelmsford Crown Court for dishonestly failing promptly to notify a change of circumstances affecting income support entitlement.

After capital was paid into her bank account, the appellant continued to receive income support without notifying the department. The resulting overpayments totalled £28,617. She pleaded guilty. Her proposed basis of plea was not accepted and she chose not to call evidence at a Newton hearing.

With leave of the single judge, she appealed on the grounds that insufficient weight had been given to her plea, personal mitigation and family circumstances, and that custody or the length of the custodial term was excessive.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The 15-month sentence was quashed and a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was substituted.
2. Custody was justified. The offence involved over £28,000 of public money and continued over a lengthy period. The appellant’s capital exceeded the level at which entitlement was reduced, then exceeded the level at which entitlement was lost. Those features placed the case beyond the lower sentencing bracket identified in Graham [2005] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 115.
3. Mitigation required a lower term. The fraud did not begin as a planned fraud. It involved no sophistication, and there was no evidence that the money had been used other than for day-to-day necessities. The court also gave substantial weight to the guilty plea, the absence of significant previous offending, the appellant’s home circumstances and her long-term depression.
4. There was no need for special consideration as the sole carer of young children because the children were being cared for by the appellant’s former husband. Even so, the overall balance made 12 months, rather than 15 months, the proportionate immediate custodial sentence. The reduction would also enable eligibility for release on home curfew on the information before the court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment for the 15-month term: [2008] EWCA Crim 1803.
• Chelmsford Crown Court: On 4 April 2008, Judge Gratwicke imposed 15 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea.