Delia Jose Vieira Gaspar Browne has been in remanded in custody until her sentencing date, which will be set on 2 March.
The couple faced a three-day Royal Court trial, with Mrs Browne defending a charge of “knowingly furnishing false information… with intent to obtain an award" and one charge of "failing to notify a change of circumstances." Kenneth Martin Patrick Browne (50) was charged with "aiding and abetting the commission of an offence." Both pleaded not guilty.
Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit described the case as "substantial fraud", explaining that Mrs Browne had claimed income support from 2007 to 2016 on the basis that she was separated from Mr Browne, and was caring for their two children on her own. However, over that period of time Mr Browne was spending a lot of time in the former family home. From 2015, he was spending up to seven nights a week in the home but Mrs Browne never notified the Social Security department of the change of circumstances, fillings in various applications forms confirming she was separated from her husband and there was no other adult in the household.
The couple explained they lived together but "not in marriage" and that they kept the pretence of their marriage up for the sake of their children. They claimed the living arrangements were only due to Mrs Browne's working hours, which involved up to seven night shifts a week.
Advocate Adam Harrison, who was defending Mrs Browne, affirmed that the couple's separation was genuine and that Mrs Browne made “a clear distinction between living together as part of the same household and Mr Browne staying at the house to look after the children."
Mr Browne was accused of having provided false information by indicating a false address on a series of medical certificates submitted to the Social Security Department between October 2013 and August 2016. The prosecution said he did so to help his wife in her fraudulent claims.
Advocate Jane Grace said: "Whilst they remain married on paper, the relationship between them ended in 2007, due to his drinking which she could no longer tolerate... Whilst they considered their marriage to be over they remained on good terms and remained devoted to their children."
Summing up the case for Jurats Jane Rouge and Paul Nicolle, the Bailiff Sir William Bailhache said that the Jurats needed to be "sure beyond reasonable doubt" that Mrs Browne had deliberately provided information she knew was false in order to obtain an award of income support, in order to convict her.
Concerning Mr Browne, he said that the Jurats needed to be sure he had provided false information knowingly in order to assist his wife in her claim.
The Jurats returned a guilty verdict on both counts against Mrs Browne. They acquitted Mr Browne. Mrs Browne has been remanded in custody at La Moye and no application for bail was made. Under the Social Security Law, she faces a sentence of up to seven years, a fine, or both.