Benefit fraud mother spared jail
Discussion
She stole £350,000 from the state and escapes jail, the justice system in this country is a joke.
BBC article
Benefit fraud mother spared jail
Julie Came was spared jail because she has children to look after
A mother-of-seven who lived in the lap of luxury while carrying out a six-figure benefit con has been spared jail for the sake of her children.
Julie Came lived in a £1.6m mansion, owned stables and six horses, hired a gardener and enjoyed luxury holidays.
The 45-year-old, of Northolt, London, pleaded guilty to nine charges of false accounting and received a two-year jail sentence, suspended for two years.
Investigators say she made more than £350,000 over seven-and-a-half years.
'Good sense'
Came's lavishly furnished mansion boasted two tennis courts, landscaped grounds, stables with six horses and a string of expensive cars.
She had a second "substantial" property worth £400,000 and was earning £1,000 a week running several market stalls.
Isleworth Crown Court heard she falsely claimed housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support.
The luxury Riverdale mansion
She got away with £127,612.20 but that figure soared to £352,342.06 after investigators calculated additional benefit from rent and ever increasing property prices.
Judge Sam Katkhuda told her: "I would have imposed an immediate custodial sentence but for the fact you had the good sense to finally admit these offences.
"Because of that and the fact you still have young children, special circumstances allow me to impose two years' imprisonment on each count concurrently, and that will be suspended for two years."
'Domestic violence'
Benefit authorities thought Came was struggling to make ends meet in a two-bedroom terrace housing association property in Uxbridge.
But an investigation was launched after a tip off revealed her son was renting the property and she was traced to a property in nearby Cowley.
In the driveway was a BMW, a people carrier and a vintage Volkswagen. When investigators called, she was away on a luxury holiday in Miami with five of her children.
Richard Keogh, defending, said his client not only suffered from ill-health, but was still looking after five of her children.
He said: "She was subjected to domestic violence leading to a period of ill-health. She was put under pressure by unscrupulous men in her life."
BBC article
Benefit fraud mother spared jail
Julie Came was spared jail because she has children to look after
A mother-of-seven who lived in the lap of luxury while carrying out a six-figure benefit con has been spared jail for the sake of her children.
Julie Came lived in a £1.6m mansion, owned stables and six horses, hired a gardener and enjoyed luxury holidays.
The 45-year-old, of Northolt, London, pleaded guilty to nine charges of false accounting and received a two-year jail sentence, suspended for two years.
Investigators say she made more than £350,000 over seven-and-a-half years.
'Good sense'
Came's lavishly furnished mansion boasted two tennis courts, landscaped grounds, stables with six horses and a string of expensive cars.
She had a second "substantial" property worth £400,000 and was earning £1,000 a week running several market stalls.
Isleworth Crown Court heard she falsely claimed housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support.
The luxury Riverdale mansion
She got away with £127,612.20 but that figure soared to £352,342.06 after investigators calculated additional benefit from rent and ever increasing property prices.
Judge Sam Katkhuda told her: "I would have imposed an immediate custodial sentence but for the fact you had the good sense to finally admit these offences.
"Because of that and the fact you still have young children, special circumstances allow me to impose two years' imprisonment on each count concurrently, and that will be suspended for two years."
'Domestic violence'
Benefit authorities thought Came was struggling to make ends meet in a two-bedroom terrace housing association property in Uxbridge.
But an investigation was launched after a tip off revealed her son was renting the property and she was traced to a property in nearby Cowley.
In the driveway was a BMW, a people carrier and a vintage Volkswagen. When investigators called, she was away on a luxury holiday in Miami with five of her children.
Richard Keogh, defending, said his client not only suffered from ill-health, but was still looking after five of her children.
He said: "She was subjected to domestic violence leading to a period of ill-health. She was put under pressure by unscrupulous men in her life."
trackcar said:
But surely a two year sentense, suspended for two years means that in two years time she'll go to jail and serve two years inside right? Or have i missed something?
No it means that the two year sentence starts now, but has been suspended for the two years, meaning she doesn't have to go... if she does ANYTHING in those two years, she'll be straight in...
(AFAIK
) OK, they aren't going to send her to jail, but how about she sells her properties to pay off the debt and goes back to the bottom of the ladder? Shame she didn't have the same compassion for her kids as the judge did - putting them at risk by doing it in the first place... and since one of her kids is old enough to rent a house from her, surely they can't be that young?!
trackcar said:
But surely a two year sentense, suspended for two years means that in two years time she'll go to jail and serve two years inside right? Or have i missed something?
Nope, it means that if she does anything bad in the next two years, then she will have to serve the full sentence.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here?
That sounds eminently reasonable for 350k, I'd happily take a 2 year suspended sentence for that amount of cash. Who says that crime doesnt pay?
trackcar said:
But surely a two year sentense, suspended for two years means that in two years time she'll go to jail and serve two years inside right? Or have i missed something?
Yep
"A suspended sentence is a legal construct. Unless a minimum punishment is prescribed by law, the court has the power to suspend the passing of sentence (generally for a period of three years) and place the offender on probation. It is the passing of the sentence, not the sentence itself that is being suspended. This means that if the person is convicted of another offense during the period when the passing of sentence had been suspended, then the person may be sentenced for the original offense."
Edited to add: I was too slow
>> Edited by Jaglover on Saturday 10th December 12:26
wd* said:
OK, they aren't going to send her to jail, but how about she sells her properties to pay off the debt and goes back to the bottom of the ladder? Shame she didn't have the same compassion for her kids as the judge did - putting them at risk by doing it in the first place... and since one of her kids is old enough to rent a house from her, surely they can't be that young?!
she had already paid it all back. thats why she got a suspended sentence.
tinman0 said:
OK, they aren't going to send her to jail, but how about she sells her properties to pay off the debt and goes back to the bottom of the ladder? Shame she didn't have the same compassion for her kids as the judge did - putting them at risk by doing it in the first place... and since one of her kids is old enough to rent a house from her, surely they can't be that young?!
she had already paid it all back. thats why she got a suspended sentence.
Ah right, it didn't say that in the article, just that she had admitted to it.
It is a normal assumption in English Law that the rights and needs of children take precedence over everything else. In every case such as this, the "normal" punishment that might have been imposed will be mitigated taking into account the needs of any children involved. This often means that mothers get less draconian sentences than fathers or men in general.
Whether you think that is right or not is your opinion, but I don't see why children should be "punished" as well as their parents. Depriving children of their mother can sometimes be seen as an unfair punishment on the children. It does depend on the circumstances of each case as to what the most appropriate action is - that is why we have judges - they make judgements,
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 10th December 13:18
Whether you think that is right or not is your opinion, but I don't see why children should be "punished" as well as their parents. Depriving children of their mother can sometimes be seen as an unfair punishment on the children. It does depend on the circumstances of each case as to what the most appropriate action is - that is why we have judges - they make judgements,
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 10th December 13:18
tinman0 said:
OK, they aren't going to send her to jail, but how about she sells her properties to pay off the debt and goes back to the bottom of the ladder? Shame she didn't have the same compassion for her kids as the judge did - putting them at risk by doing it in the first place... and since one of her kids is old enough to rent a house from her, surely they can't be that young?!
she had already paid it all back. thats why she got a suspended sentence.
Paid it back, but in the maentime th property she bought with it has doubled in price. She also ran a market stall and was banking up to £10,000 a day.
Jaglover said:
Richard Keogh, defending, said his client not only suffered from ill-health, but was still looking after five of her children.
He said: "She was subjected to domestic violence leading to a period of ill-health. She was put under pressure by unscrupulous men in her life."
Ahhhh, such a shame, I guess she wasn't in full possession of her faculties and was thus not really responsible for her actions. Mmmm, sure...
B 7 VP said:
Shame she wasnt sentenced down in a Cardiff court.Same benifit scams reported yesterday carried out by a couple.He scammed £11000+ and got 6 months-She scammed £18000+ and got 12 months.Steal nearly 20 times that amount and get 2 years suspended.What a soft touch country.
I'm sure she could afford a better solicitor.
I'm seeing more and more evidence over the past few months that the legal system in this country can, and is, bought and sold.
Drink driving? Want to save your licence? Check the article in the times today over the defence lawyer who will get you cleared. If you cant afford him or someone like him of course, expect to be bent over immediately.
Speeding? Want to avoid the penalty? Once again look at the list of "celebrity" or wealthy people who have emerged victorious from the courts despite the flimsiest of excuses thanks to their highly priced solicitors. The average man in the street wont manage to fight the charge unless they are very lucky (btw well done Towman on your recent victory! :P).
The list is endless and the examples I've seen are only the tip of the iceberg, my faith in the judicial system is utterly gone. Unless I suddenly manage to gain a six figure bank balance, at which point I will REALLY believe in it.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff