Rogue Isle of Wight Carpenter Defrauded Customers of £160,000

A rogue carpenter defrauded customers of over £160,000 by taking payment for work that was never completed.

Scott Richard Carpenter, 41, of Quarry Road, Ryde, Isle of Wight, admitted two offences of participation in a fraudulent business by a sole trader when he appeared at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 19th November 2024.

Participation in a fraudulent business by a sole trader is an offence under section 9(1) of the Fraud Act 2006. It has a maximum sentence, in this case, of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Carpenter, who ran Bespoke Carpentry and Building Services on the Island, operated the business for around 19 months.

During that time he defrauded six customers out of a total of £162,275 by demanding upfront payment for work that was never done or completed to a very shoddy standard. One customer lost £88,000 in the scam.

Michael Foster, prosecuting on behalf of Isle of Wight Council, told the court that Carpenter's modus operandi was to demand upfront payment for materials, which were never purchased. When confronted by customers he would present old invoices and to support his claims and fabricate medical conditions to stall for time.

Carpenter dishonestly told three of the customers that he had bowel cancer. He eventually declared himself bankrupt, but maintained the solvency of the business to customers.

Mr Foster told that court that Carpenter's offence had a starting point of 5 years' custody, so should be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.

Tom Cooke, mitigating, agreed the case should be allocated to the Crown Court.

He said that there were various mitigating factors, which would be disclosed at the Crown Court ahead of sentencing.

Mr Cooke said that his client disputed the £160,000 claim, saying instead that the true amount was closer to £120,000.

Magistrates ordered a pre-sentence report and sent the matter to Isle of Wight Crown Court for sentencing.

Carpenter was granted unconditional bail until his sentencing hearing on Friday, 7th February 2024.

Reform UK Poised to Commence Private Prosecution of Manchester Airport Brothers

Nigel Farage MP, leader of the Reform UK political party, will today announce the commencement of a private prosecution against brothers accused of brawling with police officers at Manchester Airport.

That's according to journalist Glen Owen, writing in today's Mail On Sunday newspaper.

There is apparently no dispute that the brothers in question, Muhammad Amaaz and Amaad Amaaz, were involved in an altercation with police on Tuesday, 23rd July 2024.

They have appeared in several press conferences in relation to the matter, in which they accuse the officers in question of acting with unlawful force.

I am not going to discuss the matter further, given the imminence of proceedings. I doubt there will be many people reading who are not familiar with the circumstances.

The CPS has not yet reached a charging decision in relation to any of the alleged participants in the melee. However, Greater Manchester Police referred the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct on Thursday, 25th July 2024.

On Monday, 7th October 2024 the five Reform UK Members of Parliament sent a joint letter about the incident to the Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Yvette Cooper MP.

The letter, which you can read above, concluded with the statement: "We are therefore serving notice that if the CPS is not going to charge the assailants, then we will organise a private criminal prosecution against them."

Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 gives anyone the right to commence a criminal prosecution at the Magistrates' Court. This is the power used by organisations like the RSPCA and BBC to prosecute animal welfare and TV licence offences respectively.

Commencing a prosecution in this way is actually very straightforward. Effectively the individual wishing to commence the prosecution sends the court a written summary of the offences they accuse another of committing. This written information is then considered by either a Justices' Clerk (or assistant) or Justice of the Peace, who will issue a summons if they think there could be a case to answer.

At this stage the bar is not very high and as long as the accused is correctly identified and a criminal allegation made, it would likely proceed to summons.

Section 6(2) of the Act allows the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over any prosecution commenced in this way. If that were to happen, the CPS can discontinue any prosecution it considers to be lacking evidentially or in terms of the public interest.

In relation to the Manchester Airport case, Reform UK is clearly of the view that the CPS lacks the inclination to prosecute any offences in its own right. That being the case, heads would certainly turn if the CPS decided to take over and kill off a prosecution commenced by Reform UK.

Fraud by False Representation

Fraud by false representation seems to be a very popular topic of conversation today, so I thought I'd delve a bit deeper into this particular offence.

Fraud by false representation is an offence under section 1(1) of the Fraud Act 2006.

Section 2(1) of the Act describes fraud by false representation in the following terms:

2(1) A person is in breach of this section (and so guilty of an offence under section 1) if he:

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation; and

(b) intends by making the representation:

(i)  to make a gain for himself; or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to the risk of loss.

In accordance with section 1(3) of the Act, the maximum sentence for fraud is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

For fraud offences committed on or after 18th November 2024, the Magistrates' Court will be able to impose a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody.

Looking at section 2(1) we can see that the offence has the following actus reus:

• Make a representation;
• The representation is false;

and the following mens rea:

• Dishonesty;
• Knowledge that the representation is false, or might be;
• Intention to make gain for self, or loss for another, or expose another to loss.

The offence is only committed if all five elements are satisfied.

The test for dishonesty, as mentioned in my earlier theft article, is the two-stage Ivey test (Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] 3 WLR 1212). A person is deemed to be acting dishonestly after consideration of the following: 

• What was the defendant's actual belief or knowledge about the facts? and 
• Was the defendant's conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

Section 2(2) of the Act states that a representation is false if:

• It is untrue or misleading; and
• The person making it knows it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Section 2(3) of the Act states that the representation may relate to:

• A fact;
• The law;
• The state of mind of the person making the representation, or any other person.

Section 2(4) of the Act states that the false representation may be express or implied.

Section 2(5) of the Act states that a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

The upshot of section 2(5) is that a false representation can be made to a machine - e.g. typing someone else's PIN into a cash machine - and by submission only - e.g. sending a false representation electronically, even if it goes unread.

Section 5 of the Act further defines the terms "gain" and "loss", as being concerned with money or other property and being either temporary or permanent.

The whole premise of the offence is that the representation needs to be false. No offence is committed if the accused makes a representation that they wrongly believe is false - e.g. the defendant mistakenly claims that a vase is a worthless piece of tat, in the mistaken belief it is a priceless Ming vase, when actually it is a worthless piece of tat.

The offence is committed as soon as the false representation made, irrespective of whether any person is actually deceived.

Some classic law school examples of fraud by false representation:

• In DPP v Ray [1974] AC 370, the defendant and friends entered a restaurant with the intention of paying for their meals. However, on consuming the meal the defendant decided he was not going to pay for it. His manner was such that he looked like a genuine paying customer until the waiter's back was turned and then he fled the restaurant. The House of Lords held that when he entered the restaurant the customer made an honest representation of his willingness to pay. However, this became a false representation when he legged it without doing so.
• In the case of R v Lambie [1981] 2 All ER 776 the defendant continued to use her credit card despite knowing fine well she had exceeded her credit limit. The House of Lords held that her continued use falsely represented that she had authority to make the transactions.
• In Idrees v DPP [2011] EWHC 624 (Admin) the appellant paid someone else to sit his driving theory test. He made the false representation when he booked the test in his own name.

And finally the case everyone is wondering about today: Hypothetically speaking, could posting a false employment history on a LinkedIn page constitute fraud by false representation?

Well, if it is done dishonestly with the intention of making a gain for someone - perhaps by making them appear more employable; more electable; or more expert in their field than they really are - then yes, it could do.

I'll park that one there!

Hartlepool Man Groped Teenage Girl on Bus

A Hartlepool man sexually assaulted a teenage girl during a bus journey.

Takudzwa Dokotera, 26, of Hamilton Road, Hartlepool, admitted an offence of sexual assault when he appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Monday, 4th November 2024.

Sexual assault is an offence under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that the drunken warehouse worker made a beeline for the lone teenage girl who was travelling on a bus in the town earlier this year.

Despite there being plenty of empty seats, the 26-year-old chose to sit uncomfortably close to the girl.

Carolyn Craggs, prosecuting, said: "He placed his hand on her thigh and started to stroke her leg. She panicked and didn't know what to do.

"She tried to move away but says he tried to hold her hand."

A good Samaritan came to the distressed girl's aid and made sure she got off the bus safely.

As the victim got up to leave, Dokotera stroked his hand down her lower back.

David Deadman, mitigating, said his client had no recollection of events due to being heavily intoxicated.

He also highlighted that Dokotera had nothing similar on his record - which is not necessarily the same as being of previous good character.

Magistrates ordered a pre-sentence report.

Dokotera was granted unconditional bail until his sentencing on Monday, 2nd December 2024.