THERE is some sound logic behind Judge Christopher Compston’s decision not to jail £60,000 benefit cheat Regina Hutchinson.

But once again the courts have sabotaged their common sense by not making sure there is some sort of deterrent to others dipping their greedy fingers into the public purse.

Hutchinson swindled more than £60,000 over a 10-year period. This was not an impulse theft but a sustained effort to milk the taxpayer.

In Oxford alone, hundreds of thousands of pounds a year is lost through fraud – money that should be used to help the vulnerable.

Judge Compston decided that, given that Hutchinson has paid back £4,000 and was in employment, not jailing her was the best way for the taxpayer to get the money back.

If he did jail her, she would lose her job, detaining her would cost £40,000-a-year and there would be little chance she could ever pay off the outstanding £56,000.

There has to be some argument over whether her employer will keep her on, given this conviction, but setting aside that issue, Judge Compston’s reasoning has some merit.

However, he did not impose any form of tangible punishment and that sends out the wrong message.

Hutchinson has had the benefit of £60,000 and, by paying it back with no other real punishment, has effectively had a nice loan at low rates.

What is there in yesterday’s judgment to stop someone else committing the same fraud?

Sparing Hutchinson jail is not a ridiculous decision but she should have been ordered to carry out some community punishment work, to at least do something for the people of the city she was so eager to cheat and swindle.

Every benefit cheat caught should be used as a message to deter others, not as an advert for how rewarding it could be.