A FORMER police officer accused of benefit fraud has refused to accept his claims were dishonest - even though there was £180,000 in an account.

Vaughan Dodds insisted in court today (Tuesday) that he believed a firm of financial advisors was acting as trustees and keeping the money for his children.

He told a jury at Teesside Crown Court that it was his father's dying wish that his estate should be spent on private education for his grandchildren.

Mr Dodds said he felt as though the money was never his, so he did not declare it when applying for Income Support, Disability Living Allowance and Council Tax relief.

The Northern Echo:
DENIALS: Vaughan Dodds at an earlier court hearing

During cross-examination by prosecutor Graham O'Sullivan - which lasted most of the day - the 45-year-old repeatedly denied his claims were illegal.

"It was never our money," said the former firearms officer, who guarded Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister. "I've only ever declared our money.

"I gave it to the SFIA [School Fees Advice] . . . I thought they were acting on our behalf, for the children. It was not ours."

Mr Dodds, of Gardners Place, Langley Moor, Durham, denies 12 charges of making dishonest representations to obtain benefit between 2005 and 2009.

On the fifth day of his trial, he was also cross-examined by Mr O'Sullivan about the extent of disabilities suffered by him and his wife, Mandy.

The prosecution alleges that the father-of-two either lied about or exaggerated the impact his ME had, and the effect his wife's conditions had.

In official claims forms, he said his wife suffered from a hypersensitivity to noise, and could not bear her own voice or that of others.

He maintained his stance today, and told the jury that there were many days when Mrs Dodds had to wear a sound filter in her ear to cope with life.

Mr O'Sullivan quizzed him by the evidence of bosses from beauty salons and fitness clubs who said they never saw Mrs Dodds struggle with noise or anxiety.

Mr Dodds described the statements as misleading and said he took exception to them, because they were just a small snapshot of everyday life.

When asked if video footage which showed his wife at a gym twice during 40 days of undercover surveillance was just a coincidence, he replied: "Yes."

Mr O'Sullivan asked: "Did they just get lucky?" Mr Dodds responded from the witness box: "They're the experts in surveillance, so I don't know."

He was asked about a spend of almost £35,000 at health and beauty businesses, but said it was unfair to say it was all for his wife, as the whole family used them.

The case continues.