Judge blasts delay in benefits hearing

A JUDGE has demanded a written explanation from the Department of Work and Pensions into the delay in getting a benefits fraud case to court.

Judge Geoffrey Marson QC said because of the three years it had taken to finalise the case against Andrew Stockill, his hands were tied on passing sentence at Leeds Crown Court yesterday.

He asked for information to be sent to him in writing because it was not the first time he had come across "wholly inordinate and inexcusable delay" in such cases involving the Department.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The judge said: "I want it in writing how it is this case has taken this length of time to get to court."

He said the public would be horrified to learn that someone who had cheated nearly 20,000 in benefits was not going to prison immediately.

"They will think the judge has gone mad. The situation is he would have gone to prison if I had been sentencing him three years ago."

Stockill, 34, of Linton Road, Leeds, admitted making false representations for Jobseekers Allowance and housing and council tax benefits and was sentenced to eight months in prison suspended for 18 months and ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid work.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The judge told him: "If it had not been or the inordinate delay in this case, which for the minute I simply cannot understand, you would have been sent straight to custody."

But he said, the case had been hanging over Stockill for a very long time for reasons which were not his fault, he had pleaded guilty at an early opportunity and it would now be "wholly unjust" to jail him immediately.

Diana Maudslay, prosecuting, told the judge Stockill began to claim Jobseekers Allowance in January 2002 and had to fill in subsequent review claim forms about his financial situation.

His claims continued between December 14, 2002 to March 17, 2006 and he also received housing and council tax benefit from August 23, 2004, until January 23, 2006, without declaring to either the Department or Leeds City Council that during that period his partner was working. As a result he received 19,787 to which he was not entitled.

Timothy Jacobs, for Stockill, said the claim was not fraudulent from the outset although he accepted it became so within a short period.