A FISHCROSS woman has narrowly avoided a prison term for claiming more than £30,000 in unentitled benefits.

Shirley Hamilton, of Alloa Road, was given a late reprieve from Sheriff David Mackie after hearing compelling submissions from her solicitor at Alloa Sheriff Court on Thursday (18 June).

The 50-year-old was charged, between 1 January 2009 to 1 March 2013, with failing to notify Clackmannanshire Council and DWP of a change in her circumstances which she knew affected her entitlement to Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefits, Income Support and Employment Support Allowance.

She declared that she was a single person, living alone, while in fact she had a co-habitee who was then in employment.

And though it was argued that this was a legitimate claim when she first applied, she failed to update her claim, thereby obtaining an estimated £30,400 in unentitled benefits.

Hamilton’s defence lawyer Stan Quirk argued that the court need not impose a jail term to satisfy the needs of punishment and deterrence.

He said: “I am conscious of the level of money claimed, and the period of time involved, but there are a number of mitigating factors to be considered.

“She presents as a first offender and has already begun efforts to re-pay the money. This is set against a background that the level of support she received from her co-habitant was minimal.

“Her failure is one of failing to tell of a change in circumstances, as it was a legitimate claim from the outset.

“With all these factors in mind, I invite the court to consider...a non-custodial alternative.” After considering the arguments from Mr Quirk, Sheriff Mackie ruled that Hamilton would be unduly impacted by custody.

He said: “The High Court has given clear guidance in cases of benefit fraud of a certain level that custody should be in the uppermost of a court’s mind.

“But there are a number of mitigating factors...Your crime is failing to report a change of circumstances, so your offence is one of omission.

“Also, I accept that any income from your co-habitant was minimal and that you were, on occasion, asked to provide financial support to members of your family, which you found hard to resist.

“The effect of these proceedings on you have been profound and I don’t consider there is any likelihood of you re-offending.

“The need for your punishment and rehabilitation can be adequately met by the imposition of a community payback order.” Hamilton was given a community payback order of three years’ supervision and 240 hours of unpaid work to be completed over the next 12 months.