Yeah, the state.

Whose paying that judge to sit there and listen to this? Or any of the other court officials

A good and a bad weekend for her....

Fucking hell!

The cost would be outweighed by the deterrent effect it will have. If it's harder to fake a claim fewer fake claims will be brought. The problem is, the actual number of false or exaggerated claims just isn't as Hugh as insurers or papers want you to think. There are still only two thirds the claims being made now as thee were pre recession.

I don't get your point re the deterrent.

Myself and Statto are saying he has got away easy.

Too much.....

No

You don't need to punish people, other than costs, just show they can't claim without proof.

'kin hell. Superfecundation?

And if they can't afford the costs?

They're normally not. But it will stop either them or others bringing claims if they're left with a huge bill.

To put this in context, most of my colleagues who do criminal law will tell you clients would rather prison than a fine. Enforcing the full of amount of costs isn't going to happen, but you can garnishee a salary, etc, if you want. Most Insurers don't bother because it doesn't benefit them.

I am very much in the 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time' camp but the mind boggles at the stupidity and injustice of this.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/c ... 32597.html

What's the problem here? Aside from the sentence being too short.

I don't see how the greater society benefits by locking up an elderly woman over a paltry 100k. Had she the wherewithal to repay that money, her sentence would have been suspended. She is getting locked up because she is poor. What about that culchie fcuk last week in Galway? Kills a man and seriously injures 2 police officers while driving pissed out his head......no jail time, Why ?... because his family is well connected in Galway. Compare and contrast the two cases and tell me which is the lesser of the two evils.

A paltry 100k?

She is getting locked up because she's a scumbag thief.

Allegedly the Public Services Card has made a huge difference, not just in catching those claiming several times, but more in the numbers stopping claiming for no apparent reason other than the introduction of the card.

She might be borderline elderly now but she was 45 when she started the crime.

I would be the last person to stand up for a thief or fraudster but I think a bit of charity might have been shown in this case.She is going to prison not because she stole 110K over a 15 year period but because she hasn't the means to pay it back.

So only wealthy people should go to jail while poor people doing the same crime should be let off?

Sorry mate, you're all over the place today.

It would seem not.

She's scum.

Do you mean the case where the victim's wife asked for him to be spared jail? And the judge noted that was a serious factor in the sentence he was handing down?

She was earning 160 a week and claiming 140 she wasn't entitled to. Which bumped her up to pulling in less than 16K a year.

Yes, she's committed a crime over an extended period of time and deserves punishment. I just don't see her spending 10 months in jail as justice.

Social welfare fraud is a massive drain on the exchequer, it need to be stopped and fraudsters punished.
That's what a lot of social welfare frauds look like. It's not all Martin Cahill claiming the dole.

Social welfare fraud AND overpayments due to clerical error was reported at 1.1 Million a week in 2016. When you take into account that social welfare spend was 19.8 Billion in 2016, the narrative that fraudsters are ruining our economy is bollix.

And yes, that's what social welfare fraudsters look like. People who are trying to keep themselves and their families together. Of course there's Martin Cahills and the like but there's also mothers of four who are trying to keep a roof over their family's head. 16k a year isn't exactly rolling in it.

Though I happen to agree with TSG that 1.1 million is the fraud discovered. I think we can be pretty confident it is many multiples of that.

As I said, it's the numbers dropping off that's surprising.

The amount isn't the issue. It wasn't her money to take.

But if you do want to go down that road, somebody on minimum wage working 40 a week would have been on less gross salary than her only working part time. They have to make ends meet too.

It may or may not be unfair on her but it definitely sends out a message.

I certainly didn't hear either of the police officers asking for clemency for this drunk especially Garda Casserly who suffered a brain injury,she also suffered a stroke while in hospital which left her paralysed for a time.
This prick had 'almost toxic' levels of booze in his system but the judge wasn't prepared to jail him.

Well, then you're a spa.

I think there's an argument that on a relative scale, if she actually spends 10 months in jail, it makes a mockery of all the violent repeat offenders who apparently deserve a 150th chance to redeem themselves and get a slap on the wrist.

But defending her actions outright and saying they were mild?

That's a problem for those sentences not this one.

Two wrongs and all that

Agreed.

No you are

Not defending her actions at all. Definitely deserves punishment. But a ten month custodial sentence seems unbalanced when comparing to other sentences.

Would you give up, I have met well to do people who when things got a little rough took everything that was going including carers allowance for someone who didn't need it.