Five members of the Coffey family were today sentenced at Bristol Crown Court on a range of charges including cheating the public revenue and making false statements for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining thousands of pounds in public money through the benefit system.
Andrew Biker of the CPS Central Fraud Division said:
“No income was ever declared by John Coffey to the Inland Revenue despite him working all his life in the tarmac and block paving industries. Even more money was made buying and selling cars and trading horses.
“The sheer number of bank accounts operated by the family and their ability to transfer significant funds between them fly in the face of their claims of illiteracy and ignorance of matters such as Income Tax. They were able to pass almost £2 million through the accounts by using false names and documents. Indeed, in one fraudulent house transfer, John Coffey hired two sets of solicitors and calmly acted the parts of both seller and purchaser simultaneously in order to transfer property around the family in different names to muddy the waters as to who owned what.
“In another brazen act of fraud, Bridget Coffey claimed over £9,000 in housing & council tax benefit from Cardiff County Council by stating that her husband was her landlord. In turn, her daughters claimed more than £70,000 in payments from the Department for Work and Pensions and Stroud District Council with false statements and documents from their father.
“No matter how you earn money, paying tax matters. But denying the honest British public of their contribution to tax was not enough for the Coffeys who went further by setting out to take funds set aside for those who most need them. People can rest assured that the CPS will do all it can to deprive these criminals of their assets and put the money back where it belongs – into the public purse.”
The defendants were father John, mother Bridget, son Michael and daughters Helen & Mary. They were sentenced as follows:
Sue Patten, Head of the CPS Central Fraud Division, said after three defendants were today convicted for their part in this fraud:
“This was a scam perpetrated by convincing fraudsters in which wealthy philanthropists were targeted with an investment scheme promising high profits for their charitable causes.
“Graham Dacre, a Norfolk businessman, was persuaded to hand over almost £12 million in 2008 to a supposed high yield investment scheme and had set aside as much as 42 million Euros to invest. He was attracted to the scheme by its apparent connections with religious and humanitarian charities.
“Any reservations the investors had were allayed by the persuasiveness and bluster of those involved as to how the scheme operated and the protection it offered.
“Central to the scheme was Hunt, a formidable fraudster who was willing to turn nasty to protect his interests. When Mr Dacre suggested reporting his concerns to the authorities, Hunt threatened him. Mr Dacre ignored this unfounded threat and went to the police.
“Not one penny of the millions defrauded has been returned to the victims. The CPS will seek orders to enable defrauded monies to be returned to their rightful owners.
“I would like to thank Norfolk police for their thorough and determined work in conducting what was a complex international investigation.”
Background Information:
The defendants were found guilty as follows:
David Fraser Roberts, Kevin Brennan and Martin Brennan were acquitted of the charges against them.
Despite asking the men to sign a trust agreement, once Dacre’s money was transferred to the Lichtenstein Landesbank, it was swiftly moved to Swiss, Turkish and British bank accounts.
In December 2007, the New Apostolic Church of Dortmond in Germany invested €10 million with the same fraudsters. They were led to believe the investment would double their money, allowing them to make significant donations to humanitarian causes around the world. Instead, the money was laundered out to a number of individuals, including the girlfriend of Ian Yorkshire, convicted of laundering the proceeds of the fraud. In one example, €100,000 of the invested money was shamelessly used by fraudsters to buy two Mercedes cars.
Defendant Alan Hunt convinced his victims he had previously been a barrister, a solicitor and had served in the Royal Navy. None of this was true.
CPS lawyers have worked closely throughout this case with German prosecutors as well as receiving legal assistance from Jersey, Switzerland, Australia and Turkey. CPS also received informal cooperation and assistance from the Attorney General’s Office in Northern Cyprus.
Janet Whitehouse was today sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment at Southwark Crown Court.
Andrew Penhale, Deputy Head of the CPS Central Fraud Group said:
“Janet Whitehouse was a trusted finance director at the Royal Academy of Music, previously believed by her employers to be doing an excellent job. She has admitted betraying that trust by defrauding the Academy to the tune of £236,000.
“She has been sentenced for three offences, involving fabricating paperwork in order to increase her pension fund by £100,000, securing rent-free accommodation for her son valued in excess of £30,000 and submitting false invoices for her own benefit for over £100,000.
“She committed this fraud against a national institution over a period of four years.
“We are pleased to have brought the case to a swift conclusion.”
Background Information:
Janet Whitehouse pleaded guilty to all charges at her first appearance, 2 May 2012, at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
Following her resignation on 24 March 2011 Whitehouse repaid a total of £319,465.05
In August 2010 members of the middle management team became suspicious of invoices submitted by Stephen Newell, then Head of Information at the Royal Academy of Music. A complete audit was ordered and letters were sent to all the companies that RAM had dealings with, asking for confirmation of standard information. Only one company refused, Whitely Associates. It was not known at the time that one of the directors of this company was the defendant Whitehouse. Newell’s case currently awaits trial.
Whitehouse fabricated paperwork in the name of the Academy’s former principal, purporting to authorise increases to her pension fund totalling £100,000. A number of invoices from a company owned by her were also submitted for work that was entirely invented. Whitely Associates was paid over £100,000 for ‘restructuring and organisational advice’ and advice on the legal implications of awarding degrees, among other false services.
Statement from Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions:
On the 2 April 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service requesting charging advice in relation to two suspects. The first is a serving Metropolitan Police Officer in the Operation Weeting team whose name is not in the public domain. He is currently suspended. The second suspect is Amelia Hill, a journalist who writes for The Guardian newspaper.
The allegation is that the police officer passed confidential information about phone hacking cases to the journalist.
All the evidence has now carefully been considered and I have decided that neither the police officer nor the journalist should face a prosecution. The following paragraphs explain the reasons for my decision. It is important to bear in mind that the question I have addressed is whether there is enough evidence resulting from the investigation to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. Those are the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is not my function to make findings of fact and I have not done so. Both the police officer and Ms. Hill are entitled to be presumed innocent and that is the basis upon which I have approached this case.
In reaching my decision, I have applied the Interim Guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media, which were recently published by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The suspects have been considered separately, as different considerations arise in relation to each of them.
Between 4 April 2011 and 18 August 2011, Ms. Hill wrote ten articles which were published in The Guardian. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that these articles contained confidential information derived from Operation Weeting, including the names of those who had been arrested. I am also satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the police officer disclosed that information to Ms Hill.
I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence against either suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the common law offence of misconduct in a public office or conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.
In this case, there is no evidence that the police officer was paid any money for the information he provided.
Moreover, the information disclosed by the police officer, although confidential, was not highly sensitive. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. It did not compromise the investigation. And the information in question would probably have made it into the public domain by some other means, albeit at some later stage.
In those circumstances, I have concluded that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction in the police officer’s case because his alleged conduct is not capable of reaching the high threshold necessary to make out the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. It follows that there is equally no realistic prospect of a conviction against Ms. Hill for aiding and abetting the police officer’s conduct.
However, the information disclosed was personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 and I am satisfied that there is arguably sufficient evidence to charge both the police officer and Ms. Hill with offences under section 55 of that Act, even when the available defences are taken into account.
I have therefore gone on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. There are finely balanced arguments tending both in favour of and against prosecution.
Journalists and those who interact with them have no special status under the law and thus the public interest factors have to be considered on a case by case basis in the same way as any other. However, in cases affecting the media, the DPP’s Interim Guidelines require prosecutors to consider whether the public interest served by the conduct in question outweighs the overall criminality alleged.
So far as Ms Hill is concerned, the public interest served by her alleged conduct was that she was working with other journalists on a series of articles which, taken together, were capable of disclosing the commission of criminal offences, were intended to hold others to account, including the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service, and were capable of raising and contributing to an important matter of public debate, namely the nature and extent of the influence of the media. The alleged overall criminality is the breach of the Data Protection Act, but, as already noted, any damage caused by Ms. Hill’s alleged disclosure was minimal. In the circumstances, I have decided that in her case, the public interest outweighs the overall criminality alleged.
Different considerations apply to the police officer. As a serving police officer, any claim that there is a public interest in his alleged conduct carries considerably less weight than that of Ms Hill. However, there are other important factors tending against prosecution, including as already noted, the fact that no payment was sought or received, and that the disclosure did not compromise the investigation. Moreover, disclosing the identity of those who are arrested is not, of itself, a criminal offence. It is only unlawful in this case because the disclosure also breached the Data Protection Act.
In the circumstances, I have decided that a criminal prosecution is not needed against either Ms. Hill or the police officer.
However, in light of my conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of convicting the police officer for an offence under the Data Protection Act, I have written to the Metropolitan Police Service and to the IPCC recommending that they consider bringing disciplinary proceedings against him.
Notes to editors: The DPP’s Interim Guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media can be found on the CPS website.
Rosemary Fernandes, specialist lawyer with the Crown Prosecution Service, said:
“I have authorised the IPCC to summons Ryan Coleman Farrow, a former detective constable with the Metropolitan Police Service, specialising in rape and sexual assault cases, with 13 counts of misconduct in a public office.
“The charges relate to 13 separate allegations that between January 2007 and September 2010 Mr Coleman Farrow wilfully engaged in conduct amounting to an abuse of the public’s trust in a public office without reasonable excuse or justification. The 13 charges include allegations that Mr Coleman Farrow failed to perform his duty in investigating rape and sexual assault cases, falsified entries on the police’s Crime Report Information System and falsified records of CPS decisions which had never actually been referred to the CPS.
“The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. After very careful consideration of all the evidence, I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute this case.
“Mr Coleman Farrow will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 20 June 2012.
“Mr Coleman Farrow now faces criminal charges and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial.
“Proceedings are now active.”
Andrew Penhale, Deputy Head of the CPS Central Fraud Group said:
“We have authorised the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Jessica Harper, the former head of fraud and security for digital banking at Lloyds Banking Group, with one count of fraud by abuse of position, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006.
“The charge relates to an allegation that between 1 September 2008 and 21 December 2011, Jessica Harper dishonestly and with the intention of making a gain for herself, abused her position as an employee of Lloyds Banking Group, in which she was expected to safeguard the financial interests of Lloyds Banking Group, by submitting false invoices to claim payments totalling £2,463,750.88, to which she was not entitled.
“This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have determined that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and a prosecution is in the public interest.
“She will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 31 May 2012.
“Jessica Harper now stands charged with a criminal offence and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial."
The CPS is celebrating the outstanding work of teams and individuals up and down the country by publishing their stories on the CPS website.
In our 'Successes of the Month', we congratulate those colleagues who have gone beyond the call of duty or who have made a real contribution to their communities by working hard to see justice done.
This month, we feature the CPS East Midlands team which successfully countered a sleepwalking defence in order to convict a rapist, The CPS Thames and Chiltern lawyer who secured an important update to the country's most prominent legal textbook, the CPS West Midlands team which acted quickly to convict a gang member of manslaughter, and members of CPS staff who have been leading the drive towards a digital future for the Criminal Justice System.
You can read about May's 'Successes of the Month' here on the CPS website.
John Gowland and Dominic Wallis have today pleaded guilty to the theft of copper railway cabling in Warwickshire following the earlier guilty pleas of Flame Redshaw and John Brunozzi-Jones on 30 January 2012. Between August 2010 and March 2011, their criminality caused some 500 hours of delay and affected 58 train services.
These convictions follow the launch of Crown Prosecution guidance for lawyers on tackling metal theft, highlighting the significant and damaging impact it has on communities and industry.
Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said:
“The impact of metal theft on the railway network can be particularly severe, with serious disruption to services and the threat to safety for all those who use, and work on, the rail network, not to mention the cost implications. In this case alone, the cost to Network Rail for repairs and compensation was £135,000.
“Metal theft is far from a victimless crime; it causes frustration and disruption to commuters and can be a real burden on taxpayers who are forced to fund, directly or indirectly, costly replacements, especially on the railway network. Not only does it cause problems for business and the railways, it indiscriminately targets homes, churches and memorials. I am determined my prosecutors take a firm stand on this issue and that is why we have issued guidance specifically to deal with this crime.”
The CPS guidance reminds prosecutors that whilst the scrap value of the metal concerned is sometimes negligible, the public harm it causes is widespread. Prosecutors will highlight the full facts of a case, actively obtaining information on the impact and effect of such thefts which may go far wider than the direct loss or damage caused, allowing the courts to sentence appropriately.
Mr Starmer said:
“Victims and witnesses of metal theft play a crucial role in helping us to prosecute and I urge them to report these crimes to the police as soon as possible. The sooner the police are able to act, the more likely it is that they will be able to gather the evidence we need to prosecute.”
Prosecutors are reminded of the range of charges available to them, including criminal damage, money laundering and handling stolen goods as well as theft. Prosecutors can also ask the court to consider deprivation and disqualification orders, denying thieves of their car or van where a vehicle and driving license is vital to the success of their criminal activity.
“When metal theft occurs, whether it is railway cables, lead from a village church roof or commemorative metal plaques honouring our war dead, we want to mount a robust prosecution of those responsible. A number of prosecutions resulting in tough custodial sentences, compensation and confiscation of vehicles have already been achieved. We are now building on this success, keeping up on the pressure on criminals who blight the lives of all those affected,” Mr Starmer added.
The CPS Theft Act Offences guidance can be read in full on the Legal Guidance section of the CPS website
Joint statment from Cressida Dick, Assistant Commissioner at the Metrolitan Police Service and Alison Saunders, Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS London
The Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service have today, Monday 21 May, released their joint review commissioned in March 2011 following the withdrawal of the most recent trial into the murder of Daniel Morgan.
This case, as the trial judge said, was of an exceptional scale and complexity, with over three quarters of a million documents gathered over 20 years being examined. The issues around the disclosure exercise were such that we could not guarantee that all relevant material had been identified, considered and disclosed so as to ensure a fair trial. A further factor related to the unreliability of critical witnesses.
To this end, the purpose of the review was to identify potential good practice and learning for both police and prosecutors for future cases.
What the review was not was an investigation into allegations of corruption; nor was it intended to serve the purpose of an investigation for police disciplinary purposes.
Those recommendations identified within the review will now be implemented by both agencies.
You can see the report here
Andrew Behagg, former Greenvale Finance Director, was today (May 16) found guilty of corruption at Croydon Crown Court.
Sue Patten, Head of the CPS Central Fraud Group said:
“This was corruption on a massive scale. The prosecution’s case was that as a result of this corruption, Greenvale was able to keep lucrative business for the supply of potatoes to Sainsbury’s, valued at £40 million per year, at the same time as overcharging them.
“Potato buyer John Maylam was showered with excessive gifts and hospitality including stays at Claridges, costing a total of £200,000 and a luxury 12 day excursion to the Monaco Grand Prix in 2007, at a cost to Greenvale of around £350,000. Maylam also received lump sum payments, via an account in Luxembourg, to the tune of £1.5 million, supposedly for the storage of potatoes in Spain and other bogus activities
“In return for these criminal payments, Greenvale employees David Baxter and Andrew Behagg were able to collude with Maylam in overcharging Sainsbury to the tune of £8.7million.
“Today’s message is clear: there is no place for corruption in British business. It attacks fair competitive practices and undermines our international reputation. This case demonstrates a clear distinction between reasonable business hospitality and that which is criminally corrupt.”
Background Information:
David Baxter was the accounts manager at Greenvale and pleaded guilty to corruption and money laundering on 24 June 2011.
John Maylam, the Sainsbury’s potato buyer, pleaded guilty to corruption and money laundering on 2 September 2011.
Greenvale supplied approximately 45% of Sainsbury’s potatoes in 2008 at a cost in the region of £40 million per year.
Greenvale, on discovering the corrupt practice, reported the matter which has led to this conviction.
All three expected to be sentenced on 22 June.