Solo parent convicted for misleading dept.

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 316, 5 December 1989, Page 11

Solo parent convicted for misleading dept.

In a defended case heard before Judge Toomey of Palmerston North in the Ohakune District Court on Thursday 23 November, Rex Colin Newman, 34, unemployed solo parent of Ohakune, faced a charge of breaching the Social Security Act by wilfully omitting to say that he was living in a de-facto relationship for the purpose of misleading an officer concerned in the administration of the Act in order to continue receiving the family benefit.

Police Sergeant Russell England of Ohakune appeared for the prosecution and Mr Duncan Harvey appeared for the defence. The first prosecution witness to be called was Jacqueline Ann Harding, a senior assessor with the Social Security Department in Taihape. She testified that defendant had applied for the Domestic Purposes Benefit in August last year and payments to defendant had commenced in the same month. According to witness payments continued until May of this year when, following a conversation with Constable John Fraser of Ohakune, she asked police to take action over the estimated overpayment of $5,604 to defendant. Asked to define the qualifications required by someone applying for the family benefit to receive it, she said the beneficiary must be a full-time care-giver who is responsible for the sole support of the children and must have no other income above $3120 gross which can be earned without affecting the allowance. A person living in a de-facto relationship would not be entitled to the benefit but someone living in a communal situation (ie in the same house but not sharing s de-facto relationship) would qualify for the Domestic Purposes Benefit. The second prosecution witness was Con-

stable John Fraser of Ohakune. He said that December last year he observed a woman and children living at an address in Rangataua which he knew was also occupied by defendant. On a subsequent visit he noticed the woman and children at the same address and asked defendant about the relationship as he had also seen them together

on a number of other occasions i.e. shopping. Witness said the defendant admitted to having lived in a defacto relationship since December 1988 and he signed a statement to this effect in May of this year after the defendant had been brought into the Ohakune Police Station for questioning about a (separate) wilful damage charge. Defence Counsel, Duncan Harvey, asked witness if he had cautioned the witness before taking the statement and if the state-

ment had been obtained by a series of questions and answers which were then converted by witness into a narrative form. Mr Harvey said his client did not remember being cautioned, the statement was "not really in his own words," and he had not read it. Constable Fraser was certain that he had cautioned the defendant and defendant had signed the statement which ended with the phrase "I have read this statement ...." Defendant was then called to the witness box to give evidence on his own behalf. He said he only reads very slowly and had not read the statement before signing it. He did not feel threatened at anytime by being asked to sign. Judge Toomey ruled that the statement, which admitted that the

de-facto relationship had continued after defendant and his partner moved to live in two adjoining properties in Raetihi Road, was admissible as evidence. The first defence witness was Patricia Gale Imhoff who described herself as a budgetary adviser with the Waimarino Community Advisory Service. She told the court that she acted on behalf of Mrs 'A' (the woman concerned) and her three children who were in receipt of the DPB. She made 11 or 12 visits to the Raetihi Road address with budget advice but only saw defendant next door .... she had never seen him at the same address. Under crossexamination she said that all her visits had been pre-arranged during the day and were usually preceded by a

phone call. Mr Harvey claimed there was no case to answer on the grounds that in order to succeed with the charge, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant and Mrs 'A' were living together as man and wife but no evidence of this had been presented to the court. And, if the case was proved, Mr Harvey said it would only be a technical offence as both defendant and Mrs 'A' were both entitled separately to . receive the DPB in their own legal rights as parents supporting their own children and the taxpayer will not have suffered any loss. Judge Toomey agreed that sharing accommodation in a communal basis was allowed under the law for the DPB to be paid out to two persons living in the same house. But of weighing up all the evidence presented - the statement, the description of defendant's association with Mrs 'A' by

Constable Fraser, the sharing of shopping, the laundry on the line, the "regular togetherness." - taken together established more than two people who were just sharing accommodation. Nor had either the defendant or Mrs 'A' produced any evidence to prove they were not living together in a defacto relationship. "But it is clearly impossible for the police to establish a sexual relationship between two people living together as husband and wife without a serious breach of privacy" said Judge Toomey. In convicting and fining defendant $350, court costs $65, Judge Toomey said he was trimming the fine to suit defendant's present circumstances and he would make no order for the reparation of the $5,604 claimed by the Department of Social Welfare as this matter was taken care of by the Department itself.