That fraud case

[leeslover]

Probably what was said in the mentioned letter

You would suspect so. Not many of of are well enough off to follow Latics as and when we choose but i don't really appreciate the idea that we are taking food from the baby's mouth to give to the Trust.

[jimsleftfoot]

I don't sit very well with the assumption by some on here that it was obviously a one off. If he hadn't been caught, what's to say he wouldn't have done it again? It doesn't surprise me he has got a custodial as he was in a trusted position (in the Trust and as a Landlord) and an educated man. As for him being a decent bloke, isn't that the point of fraud, to decieve?

Edited October 24, 2013 by jimsleftfoot

[mcgoo_84]

 

Yeah seems harsh if it's first time conviction, but you do the crime it's a chance you take. Nice bloke or not he did it. He'll be sat there tonight deep in thought of that I am sure and wondering just how he ended up there and what consequence it will now have on his life. Hopefully he's not in a hard prison.

From Manchester City Mags he'll have gone to Strangeways.

 

If he'd been dealt with at Oldham Mags it would have been Forest Bank

Edited October 24, 2013 by mcgoo_84

[mcgoo_84]

I'd be genuinely interested to see what Mcgoo thinks of the sentence, in his professional capacity.

 

On one hand I think prison is the correct outcome, bearing in mind the prolonged period of dishonesty while in a position of trust but, as Wardle points out, it seems you can half kill someone in the street and get nowt for it.

 

Mcgoo? You about old bean?

I'll look at the guidelines.

 

My gut reaction is that he's been hammered! When I've had 10 mins to dig the guidelines out I'll be back!

[opinions4u]

I would gave thought the starting point was six weeks.

 

To get it up to sixteen means the judge has, possibly, seen the victim as multiple (Latics fans) rather than single (The Trust).

 

Additionally, it's more than one transaction and a clear abuse from a position of trust. Multiple transactions could be a starting point of 26 weeks and the low value has led to a reduced sentence.

 

If the outcome is harsh it's not at the excessive end of harsh.

Edited October 24, 2013 by opinions4u

[Break The Silence]

I'll look at the guidelines.

My gut reaction is that he's been hammered! When I've had 10 mins to dig the guidelines out I'll be back!

Cheers Mcgoo, i'm genuinely curious. Unless he's got previous we don't know about (which seems unlikely) it does seem like he's been custard pie'd somewhat.

[Monty Burns]

I also thought it seemed harsh. If everyone was treated in this way then it wouldn't be, but they aren't so it is.

[Stevie_J]

I don't think his tax rebate excuse endeared him to the judge and that's part of the reason he's ended up with the sentence he has. And, as O4U points out, it was six separates instances of the offence too.

[Break The Silence]

I don't think his tax rebate excuse endeared him to the judge and that's part of the reason he's ended up with the sentence he has. And, as O4U points out, it was six separates instances of the offence too.

Ah, I knew it wasn't an isolated incident but I didn't realise it was 6 times. Makes a bit more sense now I suppose.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Knowing what I know about the justice system and the good folk in it, I still reckon the main aggravating factor was the district judge's sense that he'd been asked to do something he wasn't especially impressed by, namely read the pre-sentence reports and a thick wad of Barry's English, and hand down a sentence.

[singe]

Ah, I knew it wasn't an isolated incident but I didn't realise it was 6 times. Makes a bit more sense now I suppose.

Yes, I did not realise this too.

Over a fairly lengthy period of time too.

 

Of course, this casts a poor light on his previous career too.

 

I would imagine a bit of a deterent factor to the sentence too.

Edited October 24, 2013 by singe

[singe]

Knowing what I know about the justice system and the good folk in it, I still reckon the main aggravating factor was the district judge's sense that he'd been asked to do something he wasn't especially impressed by, namely read the pre-sentence reports and a thick wad of Barry's English, and hand down a sentence.

Are you implying that now this trial is concluded, there will be a further trial, into Barry's "crimes"/misdemeanours.....

[singe]

Knowing what I know about the justice system and the good folk in it, I still reckon the main aggravating factor was the district judge's sense that he'd been asked to do something he wasn't especially impressed by, namely read the pre-sentence reports and a thick wad of Barry's English, and hand down a sentence.

Would that factor create an opportunity of appeal for him?

Not that I think he should- don't do the crime if you cannot do the time and all that.

[singe]

I would gave thought the starting point was six weeks.

 

To get it up to sixteen means the judge has, possibly, seen the victim as multiple (Latics fans) rather than single (The Trust).

 

Additionally, it's more than one transaction and a clear abuse from a position of trust. Multiple transactions could be a starting point of 26 weeks and the low value has led to a reduced sentence.

 

If the outcome is harsh it's not at the excessive end of harsh.

Is this for Barry's or the defendant's misdemeanours?!

[Stevie_J]

Are you implying that now this trial is concluded, there will be a further trial, into Barry's "crimes"/misdemeanours.....

He wishes...

[Ackey]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for remaining civil and avoiding wild speculation to this point. Just a polite reminder to please keep it that way to ensure we don't have to start removing things / locking the thread!

 

 

Cheers,

Ack

[mcgoo_84]

Ah, I knew it wasn't an isolated incident but I didn't realise it was 6 times. Makes a bit more sense now I suppose.

 

For anyone who's interested, here is the Sentencing Guidelines Council Definitive Guideline for the sentencing of fraud offences.

 

I would suggest page 24 is where you want to be looking.

 

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_sentencing_for_fraud_statutory_offences.pdf

 

 

Obviously none of us have the full details of this case, be that the full prosecution case or defence case so I'm giving my opinion based solely on what I know (ie: don't shoot me if more info comes out that casts doubt on what I've said!!)

 

It appears to me that this falls into the category of 'banking fraud', the fact that the offending involves the writing of 6 cheques is catered for in the guideline when you look at the nature of offence column. So he will have been sentenced on the basis of 1 fraud but with the aggravating feature that he did it 6 times. However, that said, the value is key.

 

This seems to slot nicely into the

'Fraudulent from the outset, and either, fraud carried out over a significant amount of time, or, multiple frauds' bracket.

 

Then you look at the starting points & ranges based on value.

 

The value of £2400 puts him in the lowest category that has a starting point of a high level community order but with a range (dependent on the aggravating and mitigating features of the case) of a low level community order to 6 weeks custody.

 

Given that these guidelines are for a 1st time offender, convicted after a trial it appears that the Judge has gone way outside these guidelines.

 

Take into account the fact that he'll have been granted a full 3rd credit for his early guilty plea - we're effectively talking about a case that the Judge deemed worthy of 6 months after trial - which is the maximum custodial sentence you can receive in the Magistrates Court.

 

Is this the worst fraud case ever dealt with by Magistrates? No chance, but that's how the District Judge has sentenced it, or so it appears.

 

To me it seems that there is something that none of is know about, ie: a factor that took it away from a banking fraud, to a confidence fraud (see page 20).

 

If he's sentenced it as a confidence fraud then it appears to be quite a top heavy sentence but within the guidelines.

 

I hope that helps with people's understandings - I know it's quite long winded.

 

As I often tell clients, it's difficult to give a proper comment / opinion on what you may get / what someone should have got without having all the papers in front of me.

[opinions4u]

It looks like the victim is being considered as "vulnerable". The reference to "working class" and "poorer people" is telling.

Edited October 24, 2013 by opinions4u

[Ackey]

As I often tell clients, it's difficult to give a proper comment / opinion on what you may get / what someone should have got without having all the papers in front of me.

Thank you for that insight, very interesting.

 

I've highlighted the last line here and want to just point out to everyone that mcgoo's kindly offered an educated yet under-informed opinion for us here - this shouldn't be taken as gospel by anyone and mcgoo isn't claiming it as such.

 

Please keep that in mind and place his comments in context before making further comment.

 

Thanks!

[Break The Silence]

For anyone who's interested, here is the Sentencing Guidelines Council Definitive Guideline for the sentencing of fraud offences.

I would suggest page 24 is where you want to be looking.http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_sentencing_for_fraud_statutory_offences.pdf

Obviously none of us have the full details of this case, be that the full prosecution case or defence case so I'm giving my opinion based solely on what I know (ie: don't shoot me if more info comes out that casts doubt on what I've said!!)

It appears to me that this falls into the category of 'banking fraud', the fact that the offending involves the writing of 6 cheques is catered for in the guideline when you look at the nature of offence column. So he will have been sentenced on the basis of 1 fraud but with the aggravating feature that he did it 6 times. However, that said, the value is key.

This seems to slot nicely into the

'Fraudulent from the outset, and either, fraud carried out over a significant amount of time, or, multiple frauds' bracket.

Then you look at the starting points & ranges based on value.

The value of £2400 puts him in the lowest category that has a starting point of a high level community order but with a range (dependent on the aggravating and mitigating features of the case) of a low level community order to 6 weeks custody.

Given that these guidelines are for a 1st time offender, convicted after a trial it appears that the Judge has gone way outside these guidelines.

Take into account the fact that he'll have been granted a full 3rd credit for his early guilty plea - we're effectively talking about a case that the Judge deemed worthy of 6 months after trial - which is the maximum custodial sentence you can receive in the Magistrates Court.

Is this the worst fraud case ever dealt with by Magistrates? No chance, but that's how the District Judge has sentenced it, or so it appears.

To me it seems that there is something that none of is know about, ie: a factor that took it away from a banking fraud, to a confidence fraud (see page 20).

If he's sentenced it as a confidence fraud then it appears to be quite a top heavy sentence but within the guidelines.

I hope that helps with people's understandings - I know it's quite long winded.

As I often tell clients, it's difficult to give a proper comment / opinion on what you may get / what someone should have got without having all the papers in front of me.

Cheers Mcgoo. Thanks for going to all that trouble. Bet you're cursing me for asking now ha ha.

 

From reading that, seems like the judge must've gone down the "confidence fraud" line. Either that or he was having a really :censored: day.

[Break The Silence]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for remaining civil and avoiding wild speculation to this point. Just a polite reminder to please keep it that way to ensure we don't have to start removing things / locking the thread!

 

 

Cheers,

Ack

Thank you for that insight, very interesting.

 

I've highlighted the last line here and want to just point out to everyone that mcgoo's kindly offered an educated yet under-informed opinion for us here - this shouldn't be taken as gospel by anyone and mcgoo isn't claiming it as such.

 

Please keep that in mind and place his comments in context before making further comment.

 

Thanks!

Ackey, chill. You had panic beans for breakfast ha ha?

 

All that jellied eels and shandy is pickling your brains. I prefered it when you just swore at us.

[opinions4u]

Link to Mike Keegan's slightly sensationalist report.

 

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/oldham-athletic-supporters-trust-finance-6230807?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+menews%2Fnews+(News+-+Manchester+Evening+News+-+RSS+Feed)

[opinions4u]

Matthew Siddall, prosecuting, said: "There is a quite lengthy and difficult to read victim impact statement from Mr Owen which states that he had the utmost trust in Mr Nuttall. It adds that he cannot quantify the impact his actions will have on future donations to the Trust."

I assume Barry has to do a bit of covering his own arse in this.

[mcgoo_84]

Cheers Mcgoo. Thanks for going to all that trouble. Bet you're cursing me for asking now ha ha.

 

From reading that, seems like the judge must've gone down the "confidence fraud" line. Either that or he was having a really :censored: day.

Put it this way, if he has sentenced it as a banking fraud, then, on the info as I have it, I would be straight down to he Crown Court lodging an appeal!!

 

Anyhow, best get back to defending innocent people victimised by the police :-)

Edited October 24, 2013 by mcgoo_84

[Break The Silence]

I assume Barry has to do a bit of covering his own arse in this.

I'm surprised Barry hasn't been on here spouting his usual self righteous bollox yet.

 

I know he's not a big fan of proof reading / spell checking his posts on here but surely he can write a readable statement for court after 30+ years in the police. Wasn't he a Superintendent as well? Stroll on.