Woman ‘turned blind eye’ in dealings with dept

Press, 21 October 1980, Page 4

Woman ‘turned blind eye’ in dealings with dept

A defendant who received $3923 in emergency maintenance allowance to which she was not entitled, because she was married and did not declare it to the Social Welfare Department, was described by Judge Pain in the District Court yesterday as “a shrewd woman.”

Convicting the defendant, Sally Louise Raymond, aged 27, a beneficiary, of four offences under provisions of the Social Security Act, the Judge said she had ' ilfully turned a blind eye” to the fact of her marriage in her dealings with the department to continue receiving the benefit. Evidence heard in the case last week was /that the defendant had written “nil” in spaces provided for a husband’s name on application forms to the department for the emergency maintenance allowance. This had been granted on the basis of her being a solo mother with a dependent i child, whereas she had been married i.i March, last year, to Shane Piripi Turner, also known as Philip Reid Hapi, a Black Power gang member.

The defendant, who was represented by Mr E. Bedo, had denied the four charges which were laid under the Social Security Act. They

comprised two charges of wilfully filling out a review of benefit form stating she was not married, to enable her to continue receiving an emergency maintenance allowance: and two charges of wilfully filling out an application for an additional benefit, stating she was not married, to enable her to 'continue to receive an additional benefit.

i Prosecution and defence evidence had been heard last week, .and Judge. Pain had reserved his decision to yesterday. | He remanded the defendant on bail to November 3 Htnence.

Sergeant M. J. South prossentence.

The Judge had earlier dismissed a fifth charge, laid under the- Crimes Act, of making a false declaration that her spouse’s income was nil, in relation to an application to the Housing Corporation for a reduction of rent.

Convicting the defendant on all four Social Security Act charges yesterday the Judge said the defendant had stated in evidence that her marriage was something of a “sham,” entered into only as a device to enable Turner to

advance mitigating circumstances in a pending court trial.

She had contended that her circumstances remained the same as before her marriage, she was not. living with Turner or receiving support from him,' had not taken his name, and that she. continued to be dependent on the Social Welfare benefit., ■ .... However, the Judge said, her "convenient” explanation ignored the reality of the step she took. Marriage was not a trivial matter, or something which could be overlooked. The defendant had been seen consistently in Turner’s company, she visi.ted his gang headquarters, went on | a North Island trip with him, and had a child by him.

The defendant had -not given a satisfactory explanation for making the false entries on the application forms.

If, as she said, she believed her marraige would have made no difference in the application, there was then no reason why-it could not ha\j been disclosed. The obvious reason for the non-disclosure of her marriage was the effect this would have on her entitlement for the benefit.