Caught on camera: Benefits cheat who 'could barely walk' filmed at work in butcher's shop

Carl Pearce filled in a self-assessment form to allow him to pocket benefits in February 2003 but three years later was fit enough to secretly start his job, Wolverhampton Crown Court heard.

"He stated that he was unable or virtually unable to walk but his circumstances changed in January 2006 when he commenced employment at the butcher's shop," revealed Mr Duncan Craig, prosecuting.

Seven years later the Department of Work and Pensions launched an investigation after being tipped off that Pearce was employed behind the counter at Melvin's Butchers in Market Place, Cannock, it was disclosed.

"It was discovered that he had been working there five days a week, ten hours a day, since January 2006," continued Mr Craig.

Investigators secretly filmed Pearce arriving for work on two occasions last summer. In one clip the 55-year-old is seen striding, without apparent difficulty, down the incline to work from the multi-storey car park above the shop.

Miss Alisha Harris, defending, claimed that he suffered from a 'catalogue' of different complaints but had been able to 'manage' the pain through medication.

She continued: "When he first made the claim for benefits he was told that it would not need renewing. He did not know he had to update his circumstances." Miss Harris added: "He suffers from arthritis, high blood pressure and depression."

Pearce, from Dingle View, Sedgley, and of previous good character, was still working at the butcher's shop, the court was told.

He admitted illegally receiving a total of £20,178 in incapacity living allowance between January 4, 2006, and December 31, 2013, by failing to notify a change in circumstance and was given a six-month jail sentence suspended for two years. He was also ordered to do 60 hours unpaid work. He has started to repay the money.

Recorder Anthony Lowe told him: "Whenever people read of fraud involving the state benefits system they get increasingly impatient of people like me. They think we should always send the likes of you to prison and they may have a point. But there are features of this case that make it slightly different. Undoubtedly you were entitled to benefit at the outset and nobody took the view that your condition required regular medical reviews. You may have been led into the belief that you were entitled to continue the claim."