£160,000 income support fraud trial opens in Royal Court

Wednesday 21 February 2018

The trial of a couple charged with fraudulently claiming more than £160,000 in income support between September 2007 and August 2016 has opened in the Royal Court.

Delia Jose Vieira Gaspar Browne (40) and Kenneth Martin Patrick Browne (50) are pleading not guilty to the charges against them.

Mrs Browne is facing one charge of "knowingly furnishing false information or withholding information with intent to obtain an award" and one charge of "failing to notify a change of circumstances." Mr Browne is facing one charge of "aiding and abetting the commission of an offence."

Outlining the case, Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit described it as "substantial fraud."

The Court heard that the couple, who got married in December 2000 and remain married to this day, moved into a house on St. John's Road in May 2007. From September 2007 to March 2012, Mr Browne held a lease under his sole name on a flat in Rouge Bouillon. He then moved into a flat above his employer's office on Great Union Road and kept the lease there until 2016.

The Crown Advocate told the Court that in September 2007, Mrs Browne made an application for income support for her and her two children, who were both under five at the time, declaring she was single and separated from her husband. Her application was successful and she started receiving income support in January 2008 with payments continuing until her claim was terminated in 2016. Over that period, Mrs Browne filled in various applications forms confirming she was separated from her husband and there was no other adult in the household. 

Between October 2013 and August 2016, Mr Browne is accused of having provided false information by indicating a false address on a series of medical certificates submitted to the Social Security Department. 

In December 2015, Social Security was alerted that Mr Browne was living at the house on St. John's Road. An investigation followed, and the Crown Advocate said the couple provided inconsistent statements. He explained the Crown believed that Mr. Browne was part of the household all along, or that he became part of the household during the time Mrs Browne was claiming income support. He said that either way Social Security was not told because Mrs Browne knew that if Mr Browne's income had been taken into account, she wouldn’t have received income support. He said that the total overpayment of income support was in excess of £160,000.

Mr Browne’s brother was called in as a prosecution witness and told the Court that he was never aware his brother and his wife were separated. He said that as far he knew, Mr Browne lived in the family home. Upon questioning by Advocate Jane Grace who is defending Mr Browne, he admitted that he and his brother wouldn’t discuss intimate details of either their finances or relationships. He also said he knew that Mr Browne’s first divorce had affected his relationship with his children from a first marriage, that their relationship never recovered and that he could see why Mr Browne would want to keep up the pretence of his marriage.

Three colleagues of Mr Browne were also called as witnesses. One of them, who has known Mr Browne for 15 years, said he would see Mrs Browne waiting by  Mr Browne’s car for a lift at least twice a week.  

Two colleagues also told the Court that they had never seen Mr Browne in the flat he was meant to occupy at the weekends or in the evenings. Advocate Grace, however, put to them that Mr Browne would leave his flat at 06:30 to go to Mrs Browne’s house to help with the children’s breakfast, before they would even be in the office.

Brian O’Gorman, the Head of Customer Care at the JEC, was also called in to go through the electricity usage at Mr Browne’s alleged address

He explained that there was “very little usage” recorded in the flat and that the usage must have been “really frugal” to only reach two or three units a day. He explained that for a one-bedroom flat he would expect usage to be around eight units a day without electric heating.

 The case is continuing today with the Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache and Jurats Jane Ronge and Paul Nicolle hearing evidence from Social Security Officers. The trial is expected to conclude on Thursday.