Peter Dixon has been sentenced to 4 weeks in prison as he has defrauded £7,600 worth of Disability Living Allowance by making fraudulent claims that he needed the use of a wheelchair.
Dixon was sentenced at Preston Crown Court, where the judge sentenced him to 4 weeks in prison, of which Dixon will only serve half of the sentence imposed. The court was shown footage of Dixon being wheeled out of a medical centre then later walking around, freely and unaided.
Dixon had previously suffered a stroke and needed the assistance of the wheelchair until his health improved, however, he failed to notify authorities of the improvement of his condition.
Judge Gibson, who sentenced Dixon, said: “You were plainly pretending to be suffering from severe symptoms. You were calculating and you showed serious disregard to the public who funded your dishonest claims.”
So here is a man who was claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA), he was funded, all together, a total of £7,600 and he only got sentenced to 4 weeks, which he will only serve 2 weeks of the sentence, in prison? Surely then he will have a criminal record and therefore be undesirable to employers? Which means that he will be looked after by the state until his last days.
This is a joke! He has committed fraud and should therefore serve a longer sentence than 2 weeks! However, I have noticed that on the original story about Dixon, there have been comments about how his Human Rights have been breached by publishing the story about the benefits he was receiving. Now, I don’t know about anyone else but he has committed a crime, and has done so on the basis that he didn’t need to work, so therefore he should be stripped of any rights he has. Yes, Dixon has the right to life and the right not to be tortured etc but he breached the Governments rules and regulations on having a disability. He has abused the system and has also used Government funds that could have easily gone to someone who genuinely needed them.
Personally I don’t think that 2 weeks is long enough for the crime he has committed, on the other hand I don’t really agree with the sentence of imprisonment either, as this would result in Dixon living on benefits when he is released. I would have imposed a benefit sanction on Dixon, which would mean that the money he would receive in benefits would be deducted and paid back to the Government until he had paid all the money back he had illegally claimed. Why should he be let off so lightly?