Widow of Royal Navy diver jailed for £144k pension fraud
THE widow of a Royal Navy diver was today behind bars after admitting fraudulently pocketing more than £144,000 from armed forces' pension schemes.
Carol Garside, 48, of Yarborough Close, Holton-le-Clay, wept as she was taken from the dock at Lincoln Crown Court yesterday to start nine months in prison.
-
Having co-habited with another man after the death of her first husband and later remarried, she was not entitled to the War Widows' or Armed Forces' Pension she claimed between 1993 and 2011.
An anonymous tip-off led Ministry of Defence investigators to check her claims over the previous 18 years following her co-habitation and eventual marriage to a fireman Andrew Garside.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
She admitted a total of four offences, including obtaining money by deception by failing to admit she was living with another man. She also admitted fraud and failure to disclose her new domestic situation.
The court heard there will be Proceeds of Crime proceedings against Garside later this year to force her to repay the money.
Sentencing Garside, now a married mother-of-two, Judge Sean Morris said: "Over many years you were defrauding the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. That amounted to nearly £145,000. That is a considerable sum."
He added that benefit fraud offences are "easy to commit" but "cost the country a fortune. When people are found to have committed fraud, in order to discourage others, there has to be a deterrent," added Judge Morris.
"This was deliberate fraud and for a considerable period of time you had a better standard of living."
Relatives in the public gallery gasped as the sentence was passed down and Garside clasped her mouth and said: "Oh God. I didn't do it on purpose. What about my children?"
Chris Geeson, prosecuting, said a total of £143,943.79 had been fraudulently claimed because she had failed to declare her co-habitation.
He said the widow had been repeatedly asked in letters sent by the MoD each year, whether there had been any change to her circumstances.
In interview, she said she had not read any of the letters or terms and conditions of the pension payments.
Mr Geeson said it had been an "anonymous tip-off" which started the investigation.
Shortly after MoD officials sent her a letter in March last year, she announced her marriage to fireman Mr Garside and they got married on April 23 last year.
The couple had lived in Mount Pleasant, in Holton-le-Clay, before moving to Yarborough Close.
Representing Garside, Terry Boston, said his client has married Michael Thomas, a Royal Navy serviceman, in 1984. Three years later he was tragically killed in a road accident. A friend of theirs had also died. He said his client was in a confused state at the time and never had any intention of defrauding the Armed Forces.
He said she assumed she was entitled to the pension unless she remarried.
Mr Boston added: "She accepts that papers were sent to her and she ought to have known. She accepts she was dishonest.
"She felt sick to the stomach with guilt . She was not trying to hide that they were living together. They have two children, bills are paid together . She is fearful of custody but the greatest punishment is the guilt and shame she is feeling."
Garside had offered £400-per month to pay back the money she had taken, he said.
Comments
by puglit
Tuesday, September 04 2012, 9:54PM
“I think the woman should be sent to jail because it's a large sum of money and fraud is a serious crime. This is a tragic case in my opinion, and she will not serve the full sentence, so it's not really that harsh considering. What is lacking in this country though is consistency, because I am aware of a case where a criminal lawyer deliberately filed false legal aid claims amounting to £250,000 and once he was rumbled, because he had a spare quarter of a million pounds lying about at his disposal, and was able to pay back, he was spared prosecution. He is an intelligent, wealthy man and there was no excuses for him, but since his friends at the Fiscals Office knew him, they decided to let him off, with a far more serious crime than this woman. So therefor.. the woman should be spared also.. if that's the way the system works.”
by 4caster
Friday, August 31 2012, 10:23PM
“I do not excuse fraud, but like all servicemen at that time this woman's first husband contributed 1.5% of his salary to the armed forces widows' pension scheme. After losing her husband before she was 29, what was she supposed to do in order to keep the widow's pension for which he had paid? Remain celibate and live alone? Or take a succession of lovers but never cohabit, let alone remarry or have any more children?
The real fraud is that perpetrated by the government in denying lasting pensions to widows of soldiers, sailors and airmen who die in the service of their country. After the death of Colonel H Jones VC in the Falklands war in 1982, the armed forces pension scheme was given some discretion in these matters. Sadly Mrs Garside took what seemed to her to be an easier way to keep this income coming.”
by kev1ntaylor
Friday, August 31 2012, 12:05PM
“jw0310,I do not live on the Grange or Nunsthorpe and do not have any benefit scrounging friends, so do not jump to conclusions.I am just stating the facts that she ,for 18 years,defrauded the system by claiming benefits to which she had no entitlement.She is guilty and she should just accept the fact that for 18 years she was a "benefit scrounger"”
by maddeerthanu
Friday, August 31 2012, 1:26AM
“Get real 92ts11, the whole story puts her with ciminals, she is a criminal AND she will be in prison with criminals where she belongs. For all we know Garside could have done this type of thing before and only caught this time. I cannot see a mention about this been a first offence.
Then of course there is the "anonymous tip-off", Garside must have upset someone!”
by 92ts11
Thursday, August 30 2012, 11:13PM
“Maddeerthanu...
It's obvious when someone is scraping the barrel for points to argue when they pick up on people's spelling mistakes.
Carol has stolen. I agree! But not with the intent of which is being published on this page! Her intent wasn't to put you all out of pocket by £0.01? She wasn't rolling around on the floor throwing £20 notes into the air screaming "my precious."
It's the comments on here which are saying that her punishment isn't enough, that she deserves what she's got and she's a criminal. Carol should never be tarred with the same brush that real theives, bank robbers, rapists and murderers are.
I know she's never stolen anything before because this is her first offence and she's not the sort of person to do so!
I think you need to put your dictionary down, yesterday's newspaper and take a look at the bigger picture. I don't mean the Jpeg of the golden statue at the top of this page!”
by Steve0
Thursday, August 30 2012, 10:46PM
“jw0310 - I think you're missing the point a bit. I don't dispute Carol may well be a nice person if you discount this scenario. I have absolutely no idea whether she is or not. I also don't dispute things are likely to be quite difficult for her family. Let's look at the facts though.
You say Carol is honest. Even she has accepted she has acted dishonestly through her representative's statement. So that's one definite thing we know and arguing she is honest is ignoring her own admissions that she acted dishonestly.
I don't doubt Carol may have worked hard. That does not make her actions right however. Where is it in the legal books of the ages that a person should be considered innocent because they are loving and caring? They can still be a criminal.
Judge Morris did not accept her mitigation. Therefore she has been convicted, and in the eyes of the law she is not innocent and has been convicted as a criminal. You may not believe it when I say this but I am genuinely sorry for everyone this has impacted on in the family. I do not hold the same sympathy for someone who could have stopped all of this happening many years ago. From the information in this article, it appears it is Carol's actions that has caused this whole event and it happened over a sustained number of years defrauding the public purse out of a heck of a lot of money.
You say people are judging quickly, then you are casting aspersions where people may live and you allude there are fraudulent benefit claimants in that area. Surely that is to judge equally; exactly what you are insisting others should not do? Please do remember though my views are based solely on Carol's crime as documented in this article and not her background. Others here are also commenting on her crime not her character, and everyone linked to Carol needs to start accepting her actions have caused this.”
by jw0310
Thursday, August 30 2012, 10:00PM
“To all of you who are judging this innocent lady (i.e. maddeerthanu, Steve0, markus250666, v0nn1ep1ck, GetALife (which actually, you should get a life yourself instead of broadcasting your opinions) and especially you kev1ntaylor - who by the way is probably from the grange or nunsthorpe which is why you're quick to judge and stand up for yourself and your benefit frauding friends)) need to all stop being so quick to judge when you don't personally know the lady and her circumstances. How are you all to know that she herself hasn't worked hard in her job or know of her and her now husbands circumstances prior to their marriage - you're not. Carols family are distraught understandably, so can't you all just have a heart and keep your, some what ridiculous comments to yourselves. They're having to go through enough of an ordeal without these comments making it an even harder time for them.
Carol Garside is a lovely, caring and honest woman and has been punished unfairly. Her family are in pieces so the least you could do is stop publishing insanely disrespectfu,l opinionated comments and apologise - as I'm sure for you who have posted, would hate for your own children to be in their situation if you were wrongly convicted.”
by maddeerthanu
Thursday, August 30 2012, 8:18PM
“Can't argue with your claim she is not a theif (a dislesxic stealer purhson thad dunt spel too gud-from urban dictionary) 92ts11, no evidence of dyslexia.
It's also sad that your girlfriend is so upset. She is an innocent victim. Perhaps her mother should have considered the consequences before she embarked on her criminal activity.
92ts11 you say "She's never stolen anything else in her life" so you agree she is a thief and what evidence do you have she hasn't stolen anything else in her life? The word of a convicted criminal.”
by Steve0
Thursday, August 30 2012, 5:50PM
“11123 - my reference to the taxman is the MoD pension comes from taxpayers money. Technically there is no taxman, we all know that, it's a colloquialism but I think you know exactly what I meant and are responding more out of a right of reply rather than adding in anything meaningful.
But I am happy to ensure this is clear: money collected by the government has been paid out in good faith by the government to a woman who has accepted she has been dishonest. I would say that is most definitely not your suggestion I am clueless but an informed basis of fact in relation to Carol's position as a convicted criminal.”
by markus250666
Thursday, August 30 2012, 5:36PM
“11123
you make me laugh lol, if this thief didn't get herself in the public eye of trying to rip the pension system in the first place then her plight wouldn't be in the G.T in the first place.
she's only got herself to blame and its not as though £144,000 is a sniff in the ocean is it.
she deserved what she got and deserves to be humiliated in the public eye.
now who says crime doesn't pay?”