Alleged fraud couple: marriage pretence was for the sake of the children

Thursday 22 February 2018

A couple charged with fraudulently claiming more than £160,000 in income support have denied trying to deceive Social Security by not telling them they were living together. They claim they were actually separated but only keeping the pretence of their marriage for the sake of their children.

Delia Jose Vieira Gaspar Browne (40) and Kenneth Martin Patrick Browne (50) are accused of failing to disclose they were living together while Mrs Browne was receiving income support from 2007 to 2016, on the basis that she was single and caring alone for their two children.

The couple is facing a trial in the Royal Court this week and 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."

Yesterday the Court heard from two Income Support Senior Advisors who explained how income support is calculated and what information applicants are asked to provide. Matthew Buesnel explained income support is based on an individual’s case and specific circumstances, and that all members of a household are taken into account when calculating what someone is entitled to. He also explained that once Social Security took into account Mr Browne's income, which was in excess of £30,000 per year, Mrs Browne was no longer entitled to any payments.

While questioned by Advocate Adam Harrison, who is defending Mrs Browne, Mr Buesnel said that while Mrs Browne explained she didn't see herself and Mr Browne as a couple, the decision from the department was not based on how someone viewed themselves but on the balance of probabilities. 

Pictured: Social Security was alerted to Mr and Mrs Browne's living arrangements on the Fraud Reporting Hotline.

Renee Murphy, a Benefit Fraud Detector, explained the investigation she carried out on the case, following allegations received on the Fraud Reporting Hotline, that Mr Browne was living in the family home on St. John's Road, and not in his flat on Great Union Road. She explained that after officers visited the St. John's Road address and took a statement from Mrs Browne, she made enquiries with Mr Browne's landlord and the JEC who confirmed there was very low electricity usage in the flat occupied by Mr Browne. 

Mrs Browne and Mr Browne were also interviewed separately about their situation and their living arrangements. Mrs Browne explained that Mr Browne would stay at her house to look after the children when she was working nights. She explained she started arguing with Mr Browne when their second child was only nine months old because he used to drink, and she told him she preferred to be separated with her two children.

She added that her family and friends didn't know about the separation because she didn't discuss it with them.  

She denied that she and Mr Browne lived together and affirmed they didn't share finances as she was paying all of her bills. She said Mr Browne would only pay £200 towards the maintenance of the children as he couldn't afford more, despite not paying rent in his flat.

It was put to her that when her income, Mr Browne's and Income Support payments were combined, a total of £7,000 was coming into her household. Ms Murphy told her: "Why would social security pay to look after you and your children and let your husband go off, have other girlfriends, buy expensive cars and only pay £200 a month? You didn't need our help Delia because your husband was living with you, enjoying being a father and living like most married couples do (...) All you needed was your husband to contribute to the bills."

During his interview, Mr Browne explained that he and Mrs Browne made the St. John's Road's house look like a family home so the kids wouldn't get upset. Ms Murphy asked him what stopped the couple from telling the department that he was living in the house and he replied it never came to his mind. He said the couple didn't feel the need to tell Social Security.

While he admitted living in the household most of the time, he denied it was a marriage and that he did so because he wanted more income in the household. 

Ms Murphy suggested the Great Union Road flat was a "great smokescreen," but while Mr Browne agreed that was what it looked like, he denied it was intentional.

The trial, which is being heard by the Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, and Jurats Jane Ronge and Paul Nicolle, is expected to conclude today.