'Attempt to survive’

Press, 26 May 1977, Page 7

' Attempt to survive’

A woman who appeared in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on a charge of receiving a domestic purposes benefit to which she was not entitled had done nothing more than make an attempt to survive, her counsel (Mr M. J. Glue) said.

The woman, whose name was suppressed, had received the benefit for the last five years. She had married on "November 13 last vear. but remained on the benefit until March S this year. The court was told that payments made since the marriage amounted to 51298, and that compensation of this amount was sought by the Department of Social Welfare. To the woman, who pleaded guilty, the Magistrate (Mr F. G. Paterson) said tnat he was sure society did not require the imposition of any further penalty. “You are living in oppressed and depressed conditions. Accordingly, I discharge you without conviction. The request for compensation by the department is refused,” he said.

Counsel told the court that he could not recall a sadder case. The defendant had had a succession of unfortunate relationships with men. Her first marriage had produced three children. Then followed a defacto relation-

ship which brought six more children. A second such relationship produced another child. The defendant had married a man last November 'ivho was not a provider, and was himself committed to maintenance payments. The defendant now had only two of her children living with her. She had previously received a domestic purposes [benefit to help her, but now she had none. Counsel submitted that for the department to request compensation was “patently iniquitous.” “This woman has nothing at ail, and no form of relief.” FRAUD CHARGE Jane Patricia King, aged 17, an oyster packer, was convicted and fined $5O when she appeared on a charge of intendingjto defraud the De-

partment of Social Welfare by making application for a duplicate unemployment benefit after having already cashed the original. Sergeant M. P. Caldwell said that King, who pleaded guilty, had received an unemployment benefit for $27.65. which had been cashed. On March 7 she made application for a duplicate order, saying that the original had never arrived in the post. This latter order she had also cashed. Counsel (Mr M. J. Glue) said that for six weeks before receiving the benefit the defendant, a newcomer to Christchurch had no income. She had found herself at the time in company with a group of undesirables, one of whom told her that she could make extra money by applying for a duplicate benefit payment. This she did. The offence had been easy to detect, and when apprehended by the police the defendant made immediate restitution, counsel said. The Magistrate refused an application to have the defendant’s name suppressed.