Dudley Trading Standards fraud prosecution against Veronica Robinson In this feature legal precedent l l dementia diagnosis l jail term Taken to the cleaners The case of a dementia sufferer who was groomed by a bogus carer for money has challenged perceptions of trading standards remit, the context of positions of trust and tested the Fraud Act. Christopher king explains I t is difficult enough to bring a safeguarding matter where the victim has been groomed into thinking the perpetrator is a friend to a successful conclusion in court. Success becomes even more elusive when the mainstream view is that only a registered carer can occupy a position of trust under the Fraud Act 2006. However, in a case that would traditionally be investigated by the police, it was Dudley Trading Standards that pursued Veronica Sue Robinson for her financial abuse of Mr A, a vulnerable dementia sufferer, who was unwittingly defrauded of hundreds of thousands of pounds while under her care. The case, which attracted national publicity last month, has set a legal precedent, challenging who can occupy this position of trust and how section 4 of the Fraud Act can be applied. Spiral of abuse The investigation into Mr A a vulnerable former World War II veteran who is registered blind and suffers from late-onset dementia was led by Dudley Trading Standards, with close collaboration from the councils adult safeguarding and legal services teams. Dudley Trading Standards first became aware of the case in April 2014. During a No Rogue Trader Zone inspection, a neighbour of the victim raised her concerns to officers that a cleaner appeared to have control of the victim and had taken large sums of money from him. A safeguarding referral was made and a social worker went to visit Mr A. He was reluctant to engage at first, but was beginning to talk to her when Robinson rang. Mr A had the phone on loudspeaker so the social worker heard Robinson say: Im your carer now, be careful whatyou say. After this Mr A politely, but firmly, told the social worker to leave. This pattern of polite refusal to engage with friends, family and services increased and emphasised the difficulties faced by authorities in gaining access to a vulnerable person who is under coercive control. By late 2014, Mr A was completely reliant on Robinson and almost totally isolated from his previous social circle. In the past, Mr A had always been gregarious and friendly. He went for dinner at a neighbour`s house three times a week, and holidayed with THE BONNIE AND ClYDE ruN them. However, this stopped, At Robinsons address, our team of trading standards officers and he would no longer attend found draft wills and draft powers of attorney for Mr A, all written social events unless allowed, or by Robinson. accompanied, by Robinson. We also carried out a thorough investigation into both Mr As MrA also cancelled GP and Robinsons finances, which necessitated the use of a appointments and blocked forensic accountant. This revealed: attempts by social workers and Robinson had lived in Australia for many years and returned medical practitioners to assess to the UK in 2012 his mental condition; Robinson In less than an Despite having substantial assets from the sale of her changed the locks of his house hour Robinson Australian home, these were apparently depleted by so friends and family could not mid-2013, when she met the victim had returned to gain access. Her housing benefit was stopped in mid-2013, as she had Mr As house and, failed to disclose assets Mr A became distrustful of within a day, the When she met the victim, she had no other apparent source everyone apart from her, and new care plan of income believed that only she had his had been Before meeting Robinson in mid-2013, Mr A lived on 1,000 best interests at heart. Despite cancelled and per month fears about his deteriorating Mr A was again Within six months of meeting Robinson, his spending mental health and the amount had trebled being fully of money he may have been After a further six months, he was withdrawing an average of controlled by spending, the fact that Mr A 5,000 a month. At its height, Mr A withdrew 8,000 in six weeks Robinson had no diagnosis of a lack of The cash was withdrawn by cheques, all written by Robinson. capacity, and no power of They totalled approximately 50,000 attorney in place, meant there Mr A had no idea where the cash went Mr A told officers that he and Robinson called it the Bonnie was no evidence or basis on and Clyde run which to take stronger action. However, in February 2015, Mr A confided to a friend that he had given Robinson the money to buy a house. A fraud investigation began into Robinsons action led initially by West Midlands Police which found that, in November 2014, Robinson had written a cheque to herself from Mr As chequebook, which he had signed. The cheque was for 188,000 and had been used to fund the cash purchase of a house in Robinsons name. At the same time, Robinson took Mr A to a solicitor on the pretext that he wanted to stop his sons interfering in his life. Shefailed to disclose that she had received any money or property from Mr A. Letters were sent to Mr As sons, telling them that their fathers finances and his dealings with Robinson were none of their business. The solicitor in question said Robinson had led all the discussions. Robinson was arrested on 27March 2015. This had two key effects. First, Robinson was given conditional bail, preventing her from approaching Mr A. This meant that care services, friends and family could re-engage with him. Second, evidence was seized that showed that Robinson had acquired full details of her victims finances. A capacity assessment found Mr A was suffering from dementia and lacked capacity to manage his money. This meant that his bank was now prepared to restrict his access to his accounts. During the month that followed, Mr A was reacquainted with his friends and family, and a care regime put in place. However, after one month, the police transferred the investigation to trading standards and cancelled Robinsons bail. In less than an hour, Robinson had returned to Mr As house and, within a day, the new care plan had been cancelled and Mr A was again being fully controlled by Robinson. We were left with no alternative but to commence proceedings through the Court of Protection to remove Robinson permanently from Mr As life. A temporary injunction was granted in September 2015, and Mr A began to engage with friends, family and services. Robinson submitted papers to the Court of Protection purportedly on Mr As behalf to challenge the proceedings and the diagnosis of dementia. Prior to the injunction, she had taken Mr A to see a clinical psychologist, but gave limited facts and omitted to mention that she had made any financial gain from her involvement with him. As a result, the psychologist did not address the issues of financial abuse and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Mr A lacked capacity. Robinson also served on the court a copy of an Agreement of Trust purporting to be made by her and Mr A and signed by a solicitor in December 2014. This stated that she would care for Mr A for the rest of his life in return for the house he had purchased for her. However, investigations revealed that the solicitor had not been engaged until months after the agreement had purportedly been made and after Robinsons arrest. In December 2015, there was a full hearing before the Court of Protection. It appointed its own psychologist to assess Mr A, who concluded that he had been suffering from dementia for at least two years and had been groomed by Robinson. This was a turning point for the investigation and the temporary injunction preventing her from having any contact with Mr A was made permanent. The WHOSE jurISDICTION? psychologist then became a Traditionally, investigations into carer abuse have been led by prosecution witness. the police. However, in cases such as this, there is a commercial transaction and hence the matter can fall under trading standards jurisdiction. prosecution proceedings We decided that the matter It can be argued that statutory duties placed on local was such that criminal authorities by the Care Act 2014, which ensures financial abuse proceedings should be allegations are investigated, are better handled by internal instituted. Robinson was investigators who are accountable to the authority, and trading prosecuted under section 4 of standards officers are expert in criminal investigations. the Fraud Act, and for In my opinion, the scenario is simiilar to 15 years ago, when perverting the course of justice dealing with doorstep crime was something many trading standards officers thought should only be dealt with by police. for serving false documents on the Court Of Protection. At the beginning of proceedings, Robinson said she did not occupy a position of trust because she was not a formal or registered carer, and hence did not fall within section 4 of the Fraud Act. However, Judge Barry Berlin dismissed her claim. He said that if Robinson carried out the role of a carer, then it was irrelevant whether it was a formal arrangement or whether she was a registered carer she still occupied a position of trust. He pointed to the Agreement of Trust Robinson had served on the Court of Protection as evidence of this. The matter proceeded to trial at Wolverhampton Crown Court and, over four weeks, the court heard evidence from more than 50 witnesses. Mr A was unfit to give evidence, which necessitated a hearsay application by the prosecution under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. This allowed the jury to hear evidence from friends and neighbours of Mr A as to what he had told them about his dealings with Robinson. A clear picture of Mr As confusion and reliance on Robinson was demonstrated to the court. As one witness put it, Robinson was acleaner who didnt clean and a carer who didnt care. The jury unanimously found her guilty of both counts. Robinson was sentenced on 25 April 2017. The judge said that the fraud was high culpability an abuse of trust deliberately targeting the victims vulnerability and there was a high impact on the victim. He added that Robinson had shown herself to be an unprincipled offender, motivated by greed. She had prevailed upon him as his cleaner and generally flattered her way into his affections and become his carer, but it was not for love on her part, but love of his money. His house was dirtier than his friends had ever remembered and his level of care poor.She had underplayed her role of carer at the trial, but it was clear she only really cared for his substantial wealth and only had contempt for him. The judge sentenced Robinson to five years for fraud and a further six months for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Robinson was a cleaner who didnt clean and a carer who didnt care IN MEMOrY OF BErNArD CHEEk We would like to pay tribute to our colleague and friend Bernard Cheek, who did much of the investigation work on this case until ill-health forced him to hand over the work in mid-2015. On one occasion, Bernie visited Mr A and found him alone with no food in the house and no plans for anyone to visit or care for him. Bernie purchased a fish and chip supper for Mr A and stayed with him until a social worker was able to assist. Sadly, Bernie died before seeing justice done. We would like to dedicate this result to him. Credits Christopher King is principal trading standards officer at Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. Images: iStock.com/EHStock To share this page, in the toolbar click on You might also like Cleaner who swindled 250k from blind veteran jailed Express, April 2017