HOTEL head chef Raymond Lee Rogers, 47, reported a bogus burglary at his home to cover up the fact that his wife had crashed their car.

He told police that burglars had entered the rear porch, taken power tools and the ignition keys of his car, and the vehicle had been stolen.

But his plan was doomed to failure.

Police who investigated found dash cam footage from the scene of the crash and that showed Rogers and his wife were there.

A Good Samaritan came across the crash scene, was concerned for the welfare of the woman driver, and went to get her husband in his car.

His dash cam footage from the scene showed the couple with the crashed car.

That showed the burglary claim was bogus, Mold Crown Court was told on Wednesday.

Rogers, of Balfour Road, Craig y Don, Llandudno, admitted a charge of doing acts intending to pervert the course of justice following the incident last summer, but he escaped an immediate prison sentence.

In the circumstances he was given a four month prison sentence suspended for two years, with 180 hours unpaid work and he was sent on a probation service course. He was ordered to pay £535 costs and a £115 surcharge.

Prosecutor David Mainstone said that on Friday June 14 the defendant rang North Wales Police and reported that there had been a burglary at his home address.

Police attended and he made a statement that the car keys and the vehicle had been stolen along with other items.

It transpired that the vehicle had been involved in a road traffic collision some ten hours earlier at Mochdre when it had driven into a parked vehicle.

A witness came across the scene, heard the woman driver refer to her husband as Ray and saw his name on the mobile phone display.

That witness went to pick the defendant up and return him to the scene.

The defendant then told told him and his wife that they could leave.

The witness was not happy and reported the crash to the police.

"What the defendant did not know was that he had a dash cam which recorded part of the scene including the people present," said Mr Mainstone.

The defendant and his wife were there which showed that the burglary report was entirely false.

Arrested in August he made no comment.

His mobile phone was analysed which showed phone contact between the couple at the time of the crash.

The defendant had also searched for the location of CCTV cameras.

Some 15 hours of police time had been wasted investigating the false burglary and the traffic collision.

The defendant's wife had since been fined for not having insurance and failing to stop.

Simon Killeen, defending, said that at the time the defendant's father was seriously ill and he had since died.

The defendant and his wife had moved in with his widowed mother to provide her with support after she had looked after his father for 22 years.

If he went to prison then he would lose his job because he worked in a small hotel and if he was not available then he would have to be replaced.

He could be punished in the community, he said.

Even a short prison sentence would impact on his family.

The judge, Mr Recorder Simon Mills, said that after the accident a witness, acting as a good citizen, saw a woman in the vehicle who was on the phone to the defendant.

He heard the name Ray being used and went to pick the defendant up and took him to the location.

"All of this was captured on his dash cam," the judge said.

"You told him to leave because I am pretty sure at that stage you decided to cover up what had happened."

He later that day made a false burglary report to police and gratuitously included that other property had been stolen.

The defendant had told the probation officer that he did not realise he was committing an offence.

But when police took the statement there was a section in it which said he would be liable for prosecution if he said anything in it which he knew to be false.

He reported a bogus, non-existent burglary but his lie was short lived and soon discovered.

"It was a serious deception but you did not successfully save your wife from being prosecuted," he said.

He said that it had been determined dishonesty which wasted police time but no one else fell under suspicion.

Rogers had a really good job and the judge said it beggared belief that he would put all that at risk.

He deserved a period of imprisonment to deter others.

But the judge said that a short prison sentence would have a serious impact on others who depended on him and he had been persuaded, but only just, to suspend it.