Judge spares benefit cheat jail over 'ridiculous delays'

Judge Peter Hunt told Elizabeth Rider, 66, she richly deserved an immediate jail term for her dishonesty and had she appeared in court in 2008, at a reasonable point after she had been seen about her offences, she would have gone straight to prison. But he said he had been persuaded to suspend the 12-month sentence because of the unacceptably long time that had passed since.

Anthony Sugare representing Rider told Leeds Crown Court she was interviewed about her offences by the Department of Work and Pensions in December 2007 but was only summoned in March this year.

Since June 2008 she had been repaying 100 a month with the added stress of not knowing what was going to happen through a "deplorable delay in this prosecution".

Judge Hunt told her the majority of people, who work and pay their taxes to fund a social security system to assist those in genuine need, when they learned of her dishonesty over 10 years would be outraged and expect a deterrent sentence.

"But two-and-a-half years on from the case being depicted things are very different now and that allows me to take an exceptional course."

Rider, of Skelton Avenue, Osmondthorpe, Leeds, admitted five charges of making false representations for income support and pension credit.

James Bourne-Arton, prosecuting, said Rider's initial claim in 1994 for income support was genuine when she stated she had recently split from her husband and was a single parent with a dependent daughter.

She made subsequent declarations over the following years, but evidence came to light in 2006 that she was reconciled with her husband and he had moved back in to the home at some point before 2007.

Mr Bourne-Arton said the total involved which had been paid was 44,238.

Mr Sugare said Rider's claim had started out as genuine. Her husband had left her but only returned permanently around 2004.

The problem was there was a 20 year age gap between her and her husband and he accepted he had spent his money on "wine and women" and even when he returned he had not given her money so she felt obliged to continue her claims. He was now supporting her.