A sentencing judge must undertake an actual analysis of the evidence and submissions before concluding that no sentence other than full-time custody is appropriate for social security fraud; stating that such offences 'require immediate custodial sentences' without engaging with the particular circumstances is an error of approach. The parity principle does not apply where co-offenders are charged with offences of significantly different character carrying different maximum penalties, and the broader principle of consistency does not assist in such circumstances. Factors that may justify marked leniency in social security fraud cases include: offences of omission lacking sophistication, full repayment, delay in prosecution after admissions, extended family responsibilities, age, health difficulties and good character.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.