A former care worker who pocketed £85,000 by claiming she was ‘single’ while secretly living with her partner for eight years has dodged jail – and is allowed to pay it back at £50 a month until 2167.
Louise Stuart, 60, from Maryport, Cumbria, saw her 11-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months after citing her anxiety, depression, PTSD and suicidal thoughts.
She said in her benefits claims she was a single woman with no additional income, which entitled her to Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and housing benefit.
But investigators from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) found she had been living with her fiance Russel Harrison, 67, since September 2016.
Stuart, of Edinburgh Road, admitted two counts of failing to disclose circumstances affecting her entitlement to benefits at Carlisle Crown Court.
She is to repay the £49,059 in ESA and £36,785 in housing benefits she plundered – which Judge Michael Fanning noted would take 141 years at her current monthly rate.
‘I don’t think we’re going to get that money back,’ he remarked, also imposing an eight-month curfew between 8pm and 7am.
Her deception was discovered after DWP officials found Harrison had registered Stuart’s home as his address with several banks and employers.
The pair’s relationship was confirmed when they were found to have posted on Facebook about their engagement and shared snaps of holidays taken together.
Prosecutor Kim Whittlestone told the court Stuart’s benefits claims may not have been fraudulent from the start, ‘despite evidence of the relationship’ with Harrison before they were lodged.
But she said at the point Stuart was found out, the couple had been living together since early 2018, for nearly eight years – a change in circumstances which should have been flagged to the DWP.
Ms Whittlestone also said Stuart has a ‘history of dishonesty offences’ – though they were mostly committed when she was younger.
Defence barrister Emily Wilson, meanwhile, presented ‘positively glowing’ character references for her client, as well as testimonials highlighting her ‘integrity’ and her ‘trustworthy’, ‘selfless’ nature.
She said financial difficulty had motivated Stuart to offend, as she struggled to afford basic necessities after she was forced to quit her job of 18 years as a healthcare assistant due to ill health.
‘She has been a hard-working person throughout the majority of her life,’ Ms Wilson noted.
The lawyer also said her client served as a carer for both her mother and, until recently, her partner, who is now in prison.
Sentencing, Judge Fanning concluded: ‘It’s dishonesty and you knew it was.’
But upon hearing she would walk free, Stuart collapsed onto the floor of the dock, sobbing loudly, with proceedings forced to halt for around five minutes as staff helped her recover.
After she returned to her seat, the judge told her: ‘You are going home.’
It was a stark contrast to the fate of Stuart’s fiance, who was jailed for 18 months in December after pleading guilty to his own benefits fraud.
Harrison claimed £35,975 in personal independent payments (PIP) over the course of six-and-a-half years on the grounds he was too unwell to work.
The army veteran had declared he was suffering with serious mobility issues, saying he could barely walk and struggled even to peel vegetables.
But in reality, he was working throughout this time as a HGV driver, a job ‘entirely beyond a man as disabled as the defendant was claiming to be’, prosecutor Tim Evans said.
The lawyer noted the highly physical nature of the role, which involved unloading a 44-ton lorry, climbing ladders to inspect loads and fastening straps to secure cargo.
Sentencing, Judge Fanning said: ‘You are an overwhelmingly selfish, greedy and grossly dishonest individual.’
He said he was ‘astonished by the brazenness’ of Harrison’s behaviour, adding: ‘People like you undermine the trust in the benefits system.’
The court heard the former soldier, who served in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Ireland, was now in poor health after suffering a stroke at work.
The defence argued prison would have a detrimental impact on their client, interrupting his medical treatment – but the judge concluded: ‘The public need to know this will not be tolerated.’
Later, at Stuart’s trial, he drew a distinction between the seriousness of her and Harrison’s offending, noting his was active deception, while his partner’s was more a failure to disclose information.
