A wealthy businessman and his wife - who were jailed after being found guilty of defrauding an elderly relative - have been cleared by top judges.
Richard John Pennock was locked up for three years and Angela Pennock for 18 months at Teesside Crown Court in January last year, after they were found guilty of swindling 90-year-old ex-serviceman George Spann out of £100,000.
But their convictions have now been quashed by judges sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court, who said they were 'unsafe'.
Lord Justice Aikens said it was 'not in the public interest' for there to be a retrial, because the Pennocks have served the majority of their sentences and Mr Spann's memory had deteroriated due to Alzheimer's disease.
The court heard Mr Pennock, 66, a multi-millionaire, and his wife, 47, both of Chancery Rise, Thornaby , had met Mr Spann - her great-uncle, who lived in New Zealand - once when he was visiting the UK.
In 2009, he decided to move to the UK and Mrs Pennock went over to New Zealand to help him with the move.
He then lived with them for a short time when he first arrived.
Mr and Mrs Pennock helped the former Royal Marine with his financial arrangements and, the court heard, joint bank accounts were set up in his and Mr Pennock's names.
The couple later bought a bungalow in Bute Close, Thornaby, for Mr Spann and Mrs Pennock's father to live in, using £100,000 of Mr Spann's money and £135,000 of their own cash.
Mr Spann was not named on the title deeds of the property, but retained a financial interest in the bungalow because of the money he had contributed.
Problems began in April 2010, when there was an argument between Mrs Pennock and Mr Spann and she alleged he had been aggressive.
Mr Pennock gave Mr Spann written notice to leave the property and to pay what he described as 'rent arrears' arising from a tenancy agreement which had the pensioner's rent set at £450-a-month.
Following this, Mr Spann told a social worker what had happened and there was evidence given at trial that Mr Spann was unaware he had contributed towards the bungalow's purchase.
The couple later transferred the title of the property into their daughter's name and the court heard that, at that stage, their lawyers said they made an attempt to repay the £100,000 to Mr Spann through their solicitors.
However, proceedings against them had already started by then and their solicitors would not keep hold of the money for a long period of time.
The prosecution case at trial was that the couple had committed fraud by abusing their position of trust in relation to Mr Spann and acting against his financial interests by exposing him to risk.
Mr and Mrs Pennock each denied two counts of fraud, but were convicted by the jury on a majority verdict of 10-2.
However, their convictions were quashed by the Appeal Court judges, who said mistakes in the phrasing of the charges and the trial judge's directions to the jury rendered them unsafe.
Lord Justice Aikens said that, as Mr Pennock was a joint account holder with Mr Spann, there was no illegality when he transferred the £100,000 for the house purchase.
He also said that the trial judge should have directed the jury that the law meant Mr Spann's financial interest in the property was in no way affected by the transfer of the title into the name of the Pennocks' daughter.
Clearing both Mr and Mrs Pennock of any wrongdoing , the judge said: "We are drawn to the conclusion - albeit, we must admit, somewhat reluctantly - that we have to allow these appeals and quash the convictions.
"If the particulars of the offence had been more carefully drafted and had concentrated on the use of the money to purchase the property, things may have been otherwise, but it did not."
Sitting with Mr Justice Wyn Williams and Judge Brian Barker QC, the judge also ruled that the couple should not face a retrial.
He added: "They have both served a considerable part of their sentences, Angela Pennock has served the entirety of the custodial part of her term and Richard Pennock is about two thirds of the way through.
"Furthermore there would, in our view, be considerable difficulties if it was contemplated that Mr Spann were himself to give evidence in a trial which would take place later in 2014, in circumstances where, in 2012, he already had considerable difficulties with memory and was in the early stages of Alzheimer's.
"In these circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that it is not in the public interest that there be any retrials."
Lawyers for Mr and Mrs Pennock told the court steps have been taken to repay the £100,000 to Mr Spann.
No comments:
Post a Comment