1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Fraud sentences upheld
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Bradford haulier, his father and a former Bradford Council employee who defrauded their local council of large sums of money had their two-year prison sentences upheld by the Criminal Appeal Court in London last week.
Brian Noble, his father James Noble and John Christopher Martin were all found guilty at Leeds Crown Court last November of conspiracy to obtain property by deception.
Mr Justice Garland announced in the Appeal Court: "The sentences were merciful. Large sums of money were systematically diverted to Brian Noble Haulage through the dishonesty of Martin over a long period.
"The trial judge was correct not to seek to differentiate cul pability between them, and he took all mitigating factors into account," said Garland. Brian Noble ran the business in which his father worked as a foreman-driver; Martin was employed by Bradford Metropolitan Council's Parks and Open Spaces Department.
"Martin placed work with independent hauliers, checked it had been done and passed invoices for payment," said the judge. "He was of excellent character and trusted to do that work unsupervised."
Between 1979 and 1985 the company did a great deal of work for the council but eventually suspicions were aroused and police made an audit for the period January 1984-85.
"It became apparent large sums of money had been obtained fraudulently," said Garland. "Originally, they were said to amount to a little short of £35,000, but it has been urged today that because the council witheld part of the sum the true figure was less and from that VAT and other tax had to be deducted."
He said 12,500 hours' work had been claimed and paid for, when 7,300 had been worked.
In all 46 claims were made for vehicles which were working for other contractors, including other council departments. Claims were made for vehicles undergoing maintenance, and 20 days' work were claimed for a vehicle which had been scrapped.
Invoices were submitted and paid for more expensive vehicles than those provided.
Martin for David Hatton told the Appeal Court: "There was not a shred of evidence he received any money. There are a number of testimonials to good works performed by him."