SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing, Lord Young said:

“Derek Moore, at the conclusion of the Crown’s case at trial, you pled guilty to all 8 charges on this indictment. The sentencing sheriff recognised that her sentencing powers were likely to prove inadequate to deal with the consequences of your offending.

There are three categories of offences. Five charges relate to the defrauding of elderly people of significant sums of money and some items of property; two charges relate to the possession of shot guns without the appropriate licences; and one charge involves being concerned in the supply of diamorphine.

The frauds which you perpetrated on elderly and vulnerable people were particularly cruel. You and your associates pretended to be from bank fraud prevention teams and persuaded your victims that frauds were being perpetrated by staff employed at the local bank branches where your victims banked.

Your victims were told to transfer money into other accounts or to withdraw money which was then handed over to you or your associates. In some cases, their bank cards were taken from them. In one instance, they were induced to buy a high value item which was then collected from them.

Your victims were provided with detailed cover stories which they were instructed to use if bank employees challenged why they were making these cash withdrawals or bank transfers.

The total value of money obtained, or which you attempted to obtain, was £284,750. This was a highly sophisticated operation which involved significant levels of planning and deception.

The sheriff’s report states that you might not have been the scheme’s mastermind but you were a full participant.  Your victims were aged from 70 to 86. One victim died before the case came to trial and another victim was too unwell to give evidence.

Given the deliberate targeting of vulnerable individuals by a planned fraud, the level of culpability for this crime can only be viewed as extremely high. In terms of the harm caused by you, the large sums lost by your victims (or their banks) only tells part of the story. The sheriff in her report notes that your elderly victims variously felt anger, vulnerability, foolishness, stress, depression, a loss of trust and loss of confidence in their own judgment.

Charges 4 & 8 relate to the possession of shotguns without a licence. Charge 4 is directly linked to charge 3. During the fraudulent scheme to defraud your victim in charge 3, it became known to you and your associates that your victim had the legal possession of two shotguns. You then attended at his house masquerading as a police officer and took the two shotguns from him. Those shotguns then left your possession and, as far as I am aware, they remain unaccounted for.

You effectively removed two shotguns from a licensed owner and those weapons are now most likely held by persons involved in criminality. Charge 8 relates to possession of a different shotgun found by the police when they raided the property occupied by you and your co-accused. The police also found cartridges capable of being fired from that shotgun.

I proceed today on the basis that you held that shotgun, along with ammunition for it, as part of the stock-in-trade of your various criminal activities.

On that occasion, the police also found diamorphine mixed with paracetamol and caffeine. In total about 45 grams of diamorphine were seized having a value of £1,950. Drugs paraphernalia including scales were also discovered. In terms of charge 7, you pled guilty to being concerned in the supply of class A drugs.

In sentencing you today, I have had regard to all that Mr Robertson has said on your behalf. I acknowledge that your previous convictions are few in number and non-analogous.

Turning to the sentences for these offences.

In respect of the fraud charges 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, I sentence you on a cumulo basis to 6 years imprisonment. On charge 4, that is possession of the two shot guns taken from one victim and then apparently handed over by you to others, I sentence you to 5 years imprisonment which is the statutory maximum for this offence. On charge 8, that is possession of the single shot gun found in the property which you had access to, I sentence you to 4 years imprisonment. On charge 7, that is being concerned in the supply of diamorphine, given the relatively small amount of class A drugs involved and the fact that the charge relates a single day, I shall restrict the sentence to one of 30 months imprisonment.

If each of these sentences was served consecutively, you would serve a total of 17 years, 6 months. I must have regard to the totality principle which involves asking whether the overall total of the sentence is a reasonable one. In this case, I have decided that a period of 17 years, 6 months imprisonment would be excessive. Accordingly, to give effect to the totality principle, what I propose to do is to order that the sentences for charges 4 & 8 will run concurrent to each other but all other sentences will run consecutively. The effect of that is that you will serve a total period of imprisonment of 13 years, 6 months.

I shall backdate your sentence to commence on 30 May 2024 when you were first remanded in custody."

“Julie Ann McQuade, you have pled guilty to one charge of fraud, charge 6. Your pleas of not guilty being accepted for the other charges that you faced. Charge 6 involved defrauding a victim of £94,600. The sheriff’s report reminds me that there was evidence led of your clear active participation in defrauding that particular victim.

You are a first offender and - had you not been on the same indictment as Mr Moore - you would have been sentenced in the sheriff court rather than the High Court.

In your case, the most significant decision for me has been whether to impose a custodial sentence or not. I can only impose a custodial sentence if there is no other appropriate disposal available to me.

While I recognise that coping with a custodial sentence may be difficult for you, I have concluded that only a custodial sentence is merited for this offence. You were actively involved in a planned and sophisticated fraud of a vulnerable 85 year old woman. The sums involved were substantial. It is my view that anyone tempted – like you were - to dupe vulnerable people of their life savings should realise that these courts will most likely impose a period of imprisonment as punishment.

Taking account of your personal circumstances and the gravity of the offence, I have decided that you will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 30 months. That sentence will commence from today’s date.”

24 September 2024