SUSTENANCE FRAUDS

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 249, 17 July 1937, Page 12

SUSTENANCE FRAUDS

Should be Prosecution in Every Case MAGISTRATE’S STATEMENT — By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, July 16. The view that it was the duty of the Labour Department to prosecute in every case where it was satisfied that a man on sustenance had deliberately made a false declaration to obtain benefit to which he was not entitled under the Employment Promotion Fund was expressed by Mr. C. 11. OrrWalker, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court when a further 10 offenders were fined. “There are many cases throughout New Zealand where hardships have been involved where the department has made arrangements with offenders to repay sums dishonestly obtained without taking them to court,” said Mr. A. T. Grandison, district employment officer of the department, when prosecuting Joseph Fletcher Nicoll on a charge of making a false statement. Investigations sometimes disclose special circumstances which warrani .ue leniency being extended to an ■ t. This i.<s one such case. Illness in defendant’s family had aggravated me hardships of living on relief pay, and doubtless increased the temptation for defendant to augment his income by making a false declaration. The circumstances caused the department to defer court action and give the offender an opportunity of refunding by reasonable instalments, but only' two payments were made. “The department considers that if

it were now denied the power to exercise the right of processes previously withheld it would be forced to refuse consideration in many cases similar to this where severe hardship would warrant deferring legal action,” Mr. Grandison added.

“The department should not differentiate just because it thinks a man’s domestic affairs are hard,” said

the magistrate. “In matters such as that before the court virtual theft is involved and offenders should he prosecuted. The court should be allowed to decide the matter of penalty.”

Nicoll was fined £5 and costs 10/-.