No court stories today. The list included benefit fraud and probabtion breaches and I thought I'd struggle to stay awake so I decided to pass and try for a better day tommorrow.
I did pick up a bit of gossip, though, which I found quite interesting. Apparently, a solicitor defending someone on a few hundred quids' benefit fraud charges began to liken it to the MPs "fraudulent" expenses claims, saying that it would take a claimant a lifetime and more to con that much out of the state. The solicitor was stopped in her tracks by the bench. Magistrates said they didn't want to hear that argument put forward because it was not relevant to the case.
I can't help wondering if a memo has been sent to all magistrates by the Lord Chief Justice warning them not to listen to such a defence for benefit fraud because of the unstable effect it could have .....?
Either way, in my opinion, conning the state is conning the state and I don't see any difference between those who claim more than they should whether they live in the Palace of Westminster or the local council sink estate.