Over $42,000 taken in benefit fraud

Leanne Hardy told officials she was separated so she could receive social welfare benefits.
But she lied - she had, in fact, been still living with her husband and ripped off taxpayers by more than $42,000.
It was the third time the Greerton resident had tried such a scam.
Hardy, 38, who has also used the surname Fittes, appeared in the Tauranga District Court yesterday after last month pleading guilty to one charge of obtaining by deception and 12 of dishonestly using a document. The charges each carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. Judge Robert Wolff gave Hardy eight months' home detention.
The court was told that on August 26, 2005, Hardy applied for and was granted a domestic purposes benefit, accommodation supplement and special benefit, backdated to August 21, 2005.
Then on July 2008 she also applied for a sickness benefit, accommodation supplement and temporary additional support and in November 2008 was again granted a domestic purposes benefit along with support payments.
On applications for benefits, benefit review forms and a child inclusion form filed during the period March 16, 2008, and February 21, 2010, she falsely stated she was living apart from her husband.
But officials learned Hardy had reconciled with her husband, Neville Fittes, on March 16, 2008. As a result of her falsehoods she claimed $42,699.46 in benefits she was not entitled to.
Hardy already had one prior conviction for benefit fraud in 2002 after stealing $13,995.86 and also received a warning letter for $10,545.22 worth of benefit fraud in 2004/05.
Both cases involved offending similar to the present case.
Lynette O'Boyle, prosecuting for the Ministry of Social Development, argued before Judge Wolff that a deterrent sentence of imprisonment was justified given Hardy was a repeat offender and her latest overpayment was at the upper end of the scale.
She also had three theft convictions.
Hardy, who had since separated from her husband and was back on social welfare, had made arrangements to start paying back the debt which would take years to recover, Ms O'Boyle said.
But Hardy's lawyer Bill Nabney argued that while it was accepted a deterrent sentence was required, recent Court of Appeal decisions on such matters showed that home detention was not out of the question in thefts of the amount curerntly involved.
Mr Nabney told Judge Wolff Hardy had been in an abusive relationship for several years and while she knew what she did was wrong, she did not stop her benefit as she saw it as her "lifeline".
"My plea to you and my client's plea is to impose a sentence of home detention which I submit is an adequate response and suitable deterrent sentence."
Judge Wolff told Hardy he had struggled in deciding what the appropriate sentence was for offending of such a scale and given she was repeat offender.
The judge said while Hardy claimed she was in an abusive domestic relationship as being the cause behind her benefit offending he was skeptical about her repeat shoplifting and similar offences during the same period.
It seemed she had "simply chosen to lead a dishonest lifestyle".
Judge Wolff said the Court of Appeal had made it clear the starting point had to be a term of imprisonment but on balance by the "narrowest of margins" he was prepared to step back from a prison and impose home detention.
"But I can promise you that if you deceive or steal from the State again there will be no possible sentence open to the court than a full-time custodial sentence."