Leeds man jailed for 22 months for defrauding LNER (and perverting the court of justice)

[kkong]

The OP there was based in London, so probably not.

I don't think what anyone enters as their location on this forum needs to have any bearing on reality.

He's probably not really called "redditrailforu" and my name isn't "kkong"

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think what anyone enters as their location on this forum needs to have any bearing on reality.

He's probably not really called "redditrailforu" and my name isn't "kkong"

I reckon there are quite a few people up to that sort of scam though - the guy in the article won’t be the first and won’t be the last!

 

[ruaival]

I wonder if this thread has anything to do with the case.

Wow, that reads like a tricky situation.

 

[Adam Williams]

After he pleaded guilty to the fraud offence, a probation officer was concerned that he would not be fit for unpaid work.

So King tampered with a genuine letter from Leeds General Infirmary to make it say he was fit enough to do unpaid work and forwarded it to his solicitors, who forwarded it to the court, said Ms Hoskins.

He was to be sentenced by Judge Morris, but when the judge saw the letter, he was suspicious, asked police to investigate and King was charged with the offence of perverting the course of justice.

Judge Hickey said if King had been unfit to do unpaid work it would have limited the judge's sentencing options.

I don't really understand this. Is he unfit to do unpaid work or not? The judge said "if he had been unfit it would have limited the sentencing options (presumably eliminating the prospect of some non-custodial community sentences)", which to me implies that in reality the offender actually was fit to do unpaid work and was not unfit.

So .. the offender modified the letter to say he wasn't unfit, which was the truth? What?

Is this just a really shoddily written piece of journalism?

 

[tspaul26]

I don't really understand this. Is he unfit to do unpaid work or not? The judge said "if he had been unfit it would have limited the sentencing options (presumably eliminating the prospect of some non-custodial community sentences)", which to me implies that in reality the offender actually was fit to do unpaid work and was not unfit.

So .. the offender modified the letter to say he wasn't unfit, which was the truth? What?

Is this just a really shoddily written piece of journalism?

If the convict is fit to do unpaid work then community orders can be considered by way of sentencing.

If the convict is unfit to do unpaid work, that takes those community orders off the table i.e. you’re not going to be ordered to do unpaid work if you’re not fit to do it.

Based on this article, the hospital letter said he was unfit which meant he was more likely to be fined or receive a custodial sentence.

By fabricating a letter saying he was fit, he was attempting to put the lower level sentencing options back in contention.

 

[Adam Williams]

If the convict is fit to do unpaid work then community orders can be considered by way of sentencing.

If the convict is unfit to do unpaid work, that takes those community orders off the table i.e. you’re not going to be ordered to do unpaid work if you’re not fit to do it.

Based on this article, the hospital letter said he was unfit which meant he was more likely to be fined or receive a custodial sentence.

By fabricating a letter saying he was fit, he was attempting to put the lower level sentencing options back in contention.

I think I understand this much

But the judge said "if King had been unfit to do unpaid work it would have limited the judge's sentencing options" which sounds to me like he wasn't actually unfit in reality - i.e. it's a hypothetical because the truth emerged.

 

[nw1]

If he actually was somehow this forum would sympathise and help him like they do with all "dispute and prosecution" posts unconditionally.

That's the role of the "disputes and prosecutions" subsection.

It's not to pass moral judgment. The justice system does that.

 

[tspaul26]

I think I understand this much

But the judge said "if King had been unfit to do unpaid work it would have limited the judge's sentencing options" which sounds to me like he wasn't actually unfit in reality - i.e. it's a hypothetical because the truth emerged.

No, it explains King’s reason for wanting to be declared fit: if he is unfit then he won’t get a community order so by fabricating the letter (to say he was fit) the aim was to broaden the potential sentences available.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I think I understand this much

But the judge said "if King had been unfit to do unpaid work it would have limited the judge's sentencing options" which sounds to me like he wasn't actually unfit in reality - i.e. it's a hypothetical because the truth emerged.

I think the "if" refers to what would have happened had he not fabricated the letter. Because he fabricated the letter it became an irrelevance anyway

 

[Pushpit]

I think I understand this much

But the judge said "if King had been unfit to do unpaid work it would have limited the judge's sentencing options" which sounds to me like he wasn't actually unfit in reality - i.e. it's a hypothetical because the truth emerged.

The point being that the judge took exception to the defendant interfering in his sentencing options, so one should stressed the last part of that quote rather than the first. The defendant had their sentence deferred for reports, the probation report said "unfit to do any community order that we can currently offer" - typically manual work such as grass cutting, cleaning, painting, rubbish collection. The judge probably reached a similar view and then this cod hospital letter appeared apparently contradicting this position, suggesting the defendant could in fact work. Judge smells a rat, and asks the police to investigate. The reason it's serious is not whether or not he can work, it's the fact that it was trying to steer the Court in quite improper ways.

 

[greatkingrat]

If the convict is fit to do unpaid work then community orders can be considered by way of sentencing.

If the convict is unfit to do unpaid work, that takes those community orders off the table i.e. you’re not going to be ordered to do unpaid work if you’re not fit to do it.

Based on this article, the hospital letter said he was unfit which meant he was more likely to be fined or receive a custodial sentence.

By fabricating a letter saying he was fit, he was attempting to put the lower level sentencing options back in contention.

Giving someone with some sort of health condition a tougher sentence because they are unable to do some forms of work seems rather dubious from an Equality Act perspective. Surely there must be some sort of unpaid work than can be done sitting down, even if it is just stuffing envelopes or something?

 

[Haywain]

Giving someone with some sort of health condition a tougher sentence because they are unable to do some forms of work seems rather dubious from an Equality Act perspective. Surely there must be some sort of unpaid work than can be done sitting down, even if it is just stuffing envelopes or something?

It would be an alternative sentence, not a tougher one.

 

[AlterEgo]

Giving someone with some sort of health condition a tougher sentence because they are unable to do some forms of work seems rather dubious from an Equality Act perspective. Surely there must be some sort of unpaid work than can be done sitting down, even if it is just stuffing envelopes or something?

You don't know what the person's alleged health condition is, so it would be wrong to just assume they could stuff envelopes. Note that the offender was jailed for perverting the course of justice, not the original fraud.

 

[Krokodil]

Giving someone with some sort of health condition a tougher sentence because they are unable to do some forms of work seems rather dubious from an Equality Act perspective.

In theory I suppose community service isn't supposed to be viewed as a soft option (though the public probably have different views).

 

[KNN]

In theory I suppose community service isn't supposed to be viewed as a soft option (though the public probably have different views).

It's a soft option if you know you won't have to do it. He was likely planning to get another assessment and never be fit to attend.

 

[Fermiboson]

And very often it isn’t a soft option: compare sitting in a cell with three warm meals a day vs mowing the lawn in the bright summer sun all day while being unable to receive wages. Unlike the US UK prisons don’t have the same system of quasi-indentured servitude for inmates.

 

[Egg Centric]

And very often it isn’t a soft option: compare sitting in a cell with three warm meals a day vs mowing the lawn in the bright summer sun all day while being unable to receive wages. Unlike the US UK prisons don’t have the same system of quasi-indentured servitude for inmates.

The guy (if you believe a word he says, which is obviously problematic when he's a double fraudster at a minimum!) has lost his home and will presumably lose his job because of prison. Which is supposed to be the point of prison - the deprivation of liberty and everything that goes along with it. That's far worse than the community service.

 

[Fermiboson]

The guy (if you believe a word he says, which is obviously problematic when he's a double fraudster at a minimum!) has lost his home and will presumably lose his job because of prison. Which is supposed to be the point of prison - the deprivation of liberty and everything that goes along with it. That's far worse than the community service.

He will likely lose his job for a fraud conviction as well, and I’m not sure his home has anything to do with anything - I suspect it’s just his general financial situation which will have related to his inability to borrow/other common factors that drove him to fraud in the first place.

 

[Egg Centric]

He will likely lose his job for a fraud conviction as well, and I’m not sure his home has anything to do with anything - I suspect it’s just his general financial situation which will have related to his inability to borrow/other common factors that drove him to fraud in the first place.

Very unclear because of the reporting tbh, about all we can say is he seems to think it's related somehow.

He would be able to get *some* kind of job with a fraud conviction doing community service. I'm sorry but I don't agree that prison is in any way preferable to community service for 99% of the population (the very institutionalised maybe). Would you rather do 200 hours of community service or 6 months of prison*?


*I've no idea what the "exchange rate" is

 

[Fermiboson]

Very unclear because of the reporting tbh, about all we can say is he seems to think it's related somehow.

He would be able to get *some* kind of job with a fraud conviction doing community service. I'm sorry but I don't agree that prison is in any way preferable to community service for 99% of the population (the very institutionalised maybe). Would you rather do 200 hours of community service or 6 months of prison*?


*I've no idea what the "exchange rate" is

I don’t know much about what goes on in the UK but where I’m from (which was a UK based legal system) 250 hours community service corresponds to something like 2 months in prison; the justification I’ve heard is that you’re expected to spend about the same amount of days doing community service as you would have spent in prison.

 

[yorkie]

If he actually was somehow this forum would sympathise and help him like they do with all "dispute and prosecution" posts unconditionally

I'm not sure what is meant by "this forum"?

In any case, I don't recognise this claim as being true, either on a collective basis or on an individual basis.

If anyone ever has any concerns regarding any post in any section, and in particular the D&P section, this should be reported to us (directly, through the report button) and not remarked upon on any forum thread. Any such report should be clear, concise, state clearly which part(s) of the post are causing concern, what the concern(s) is/are, and which rule(s) may have been broken. We will then investigate the matter.

If anyone disagrees with our forum rules and/or guidelines for posting in D&P, or any other policy, please contact us directly through the Contact Us form.

It is a fundamental civil right for everyone to be represented and advised in legal proceedings, no matter how heinous of a crime they have committed, let alone ticketing offences. Such talk presenting anyone who helps with a defense as "sympathisers" is downright dangerous and threatens the integrity of a free and fair justice system.

Very true! If I can interest you in any of our upcoming forum meals, it will be on us!

Oh, it’s always been a political problem. But our life goal as upstanding citizens should never be to emulate politicians.

Except for the good ones! Such as those local to me who are trying to hold LNER to account for their appalling recent actions against residents of Holgate, Acomb and surrounding areas of York.

Of course, bad people can give the majority who are not so guilty a bad name; it is fashionable to see one or two people, who are deemed to be representative of a particular group, say or do something that is deemed objectionable, to be indicative that an entire group needs to be attributed to those actions or views.

 

[Fermiboson]

If anyone disagrees with our forum rules and/or guidelines for posting in D&P, or any other policy, please contact us directly through the Contact Us form.

Perhaps off topic, but I’m somewhat curious - have TOCs or TOC representatives ever contacted the forum over the advice given to fare evaders, with regard to ticketing loopholes, or “leaks” of internal information by TOC employees? Understand if you can’t answer the question, of course.

 

[Egg Centric]

Perhaps off topic, but I’m somewhat curious - have TOCs or TOC representatives ever contacted the forum over the advice given to fare evaders, with regard to ticketing loopholes, or “leaks” of internal information by TOC employees? Understand if you can’t answer the question, of course.

You definitely need to come to a forum meal!

 

[Fermiboson]

You definitely need to come to a forum meal!

I’ve been looking at it for a while, but unfortunately most are either too far or don’t fit into my schedule. Rest assured I’m working on being able to come to one!

 

[MrJeeves]

Spotted this second article: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...l-fans-and-then-applying-for-a-refund-4585072

York Crown Court heard King had previous convictions for fraud which were deemed an aggravating factor.

King also had previous fraud convictions, which the court took into account during sentencing.

 

[kkong]

Spotted this second article: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...l-fans-and-then-applying-for-a-refund-4585072

Interesting to note that LNER's spokesman implies they are not a "reputable outlet"

"the clear advice is to only buy tickets from reputable outlets or direct from LNER.”

 

[infobleep]

My reading was that he wanted unpaid work to be considered, to reduce the likelihood of a prison sentence following his guilty plea for fraud. Probation/hospital found him unfit but he altered the letter.

It hadn't occurred to me before that if someone is unfit to do unpaid work, they would get a prison sentence.

I guess that is a warning to all people unfit to do unpaid work. Don't commit crimes as you are more likely to be jailed than those fit enough to do unpaid work. Assuming this man was due to be jailed before he committed the further crime.

Whilst I accept people must have some punishment, surely there must be some way of punishing those unfit to work in a way that means they have the same liberties as those fit enough to do unpaid work.

Of course being charged with perverting the course of justice is a factor that would have applied to those fit enough to do unpaid work, if they have resorted to something that was covered by that law.

The point being that the judge took exception to the defendant interfering in his sentencing options, so one should stressed the last part of that quote rather than the first. The defendant had their sentence deferred for reports, the probation report said "unfit to do any community order that we can currently offer" - typically manual work such as grass cutting, cleaning, painting, rubbish collection. The judge probably reached a similar view and then this cod hospital letter appeared apparently contradicting this position, suggesting the defendant could in fact work. Judge smells a rat, and asks the police to investigate. The reason it's serious is not whether or not he can work, it's the fact that it was trying to steer the Court in quite improper ways.

Perhaps here needs to be a broadening of community orders so it can cover people not fit enough to do manual labour. There must be other types of unpaid work that could be done by those unfit.

It would be an alternative sentence, not a tougher one.

I consider taking away a liberty as a tougher sentence to community service but I accept if it's shorter may be someone would see that as over and done with.

Of course, which one has the biggest impact on someones life. Shorter jail time or longer community service order in terms of number of days taken to conplete it, as opposed to number of hours actually working?

You don't know what the person's alleged health condition is, so it would be wrong to just assume they could stuff envelopes. Note that the offender was jailed for perverting the course of justice, not the original fraud.

But we don't know what they could do. Clearly selling on train tickets and refunding them was within their abilities, so weren't entirely unable to do something.

Spotted this second article: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...l-fans-and-then-applying-for-a-refund-4585072

King also had previous fraud convictions, which the court took into account during sentencing.

All evidence of a longer sentence likely being imposed. Would a community service order even have been given, if the letter hadn't been forged, given the previous fraud?

 

[AlterEgo]

But we don't know what they could do. Clearly selling on train tickets and refunding them was within their abilities, so weren't entirely unable to do something.

At the time of the offences, yes. The last occasion of offending was May 2022, which is nearly two years ago. You don’t know if his health situation had changed or not.

 

[Pushpit]

It hadn't occurred to me before that if someone is unfit to do unpaid work, they would get a prison sentence.

I guess that is a warning to all people unfit to do unpaid work. Don't commit crimes as you are more likely to be jailed than those fit enough to do unpaid work. Assuming this man was due to be jailed before he committed the further crime.

Not quite, in particular a court is not supposed to impose a more severe sentence if they are unable to do unpaid work. It's more about the range of options open to a court at the point of sentencing. Moreover community orders - the broad category that unpaid work falls under - has a number of other options in it, including curfews, prohibiting certain activities such as foreign travel, enforcing alcohol and/or drug programmes.

 

[tony6499]

It just shows you whatever wheeze you dream up to scam the railway or others it quickly unravels especially in the digital age