Published date: 03 December 2015 |
Published by: Staff reporterRead more articles by Staff reporterEmail reporter
Dinner lady Mary Jo Griffiths acted with kindness when her best friend died and she raised her daughter as her own.
She looked after her for a number of years – but ended up stealing half of the girl’s inheritance.
When she was 18, victim Jamie Lea Jones, now 21, expected that there would be £50,000 for her, but almost half of it had disappeared.
Griffiths, 43, of Hen Afon Road in Rhyl, denied at Mold Crown Court, abusing her position as guardian by making unauthorised withdrawals from a bank account between May 2010 and November 2013.
At Mold Crown Court she claimed that before the victim’s grandparents died they told her she could take half of the money because of what she had done to care for her as a child.
She also claimed that the young woman’s uncle, one of the executers, had told her she could have half.
But she was convicted of fraud by the jury and was told by a judge that she had committed a despicable offence.
Judge Rhys Rowlands bailed her pending sentence in January and told her that a crucial aspect of the case was repayment of the money she had taken.
If arrangements were made to re-pay the money then that would be a factor to be considered when he decided whether the prison sentence she would receive would be immediate or suspended, he said.
Defending barrister Duncan Bould had suggested that she was a woman quite incapable of behaving in the despicable way alleged against her, Judge Rowlands said.
“The jury found that he was very wrong about that.
“You plainly fall to be sentenced for behaving in a totally despicable way towards Jamie Lea Jones and the money to which she was entitled.”
He told her: “You were very kind to her over the years. She was a vulnerable young woman looking forward to that money.
“You took half of it and frankly from where I am sitting you frittered it away.”
Judge Rowlands said that he did not understand why, when the Jones family confronted her and asked her to pay the money back, she arrogantly ignored them.
“That landed you in this court,” he said.
She had been convicted on overwhelming evidence.
It was a serious case which passed the custody threshold.
Two features would be considered when it came to be decided whether the sentence would be suspended or not.
She had a child aged six to care for – and more importantly the issue of whether or not she could start repaying the money she had taken.
The defendant had failed to repay anything to date and if she arrogantly said that she was not going to do so then the probable consequence was that she would go to prison, he said.
Griffiths, a mum of three and part time school dinner lady who had no previous convictions, was bailed pending sentence subject to a 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. tagged curfew.
Prosecutor David Mainstone said Griffiths was motivated by money and had told a number of lies to try and get away with stealing the inheritance left to the victim by her grandparents.
Her two uncles had trusted the defendant to do the right thing but she placed some of the money in her own account and used money as her own, he said.
Later she opened up an account in the victim’s name but was a signatory to the account and continued to take money out of it.
She had claimed that the young woman’s grandparents and one of her uncles had told her she could have half of the money.
The court heard how the victim’s mother Valerie Jones died in February 2003.
Griffiths looked after her daughter before she died and took her in after her death, becoming her legal guardian.
In evidence, Jamie Lea Jones said that she moved out when she was 18 and found that instead of £50,000 there was about £25,000 in the account.
Griffiths had told her that she had been entitled to take half and when she checked with her uncle, an executor, he told her she was not.
She said she had been reluctant to make a formal complaint because of the rift it would cause.
Her uncle Stephen Jones told the jury: “I just trusted her to do the right thing.”
In evidence, through tears, Griffiths said she had been told she was entitled to half the money because of everything she had done over the years and denied acting dishonestly.
The money had been spent on paying bills and general living expenses, not on any lavish life-style, she said.
She looked after her for a number of years – but ended up stealing half of the girl’s inheritance.
When she was 18, victim Jamie Lea Jones, now 21, expected that there would be £50,000 for her, but almost half of it had disappeared.
Griffiths, 43, of Hen Afon Road in Rhyl, denied at Mold Crown Court, abusing her position as guardian by making unauthorised withdrawals from a bank account between May 2010 and November 2013.
At Mold Crown Court she claimed that before the victim’s grandparents died they told her she could take half of the money because of what she had done to care for her as a child.
She also claimed that the young woman’s uncle, one of the executers, had told her she could have half.
But she was convicted of fraud by the jury and was told by a judge that she had committed a despicable offence.
Judge Rhys Rowlands bailed her pending sentence in January and told her that a crucial aspect of the case was repayment of the money she had taken.
If arrangements were made to re-pay the money then that would be a factor to be considered when he decided whether the prison sentence she would receive would be immediate or suspended, he said.
Defending barrister Duncan Bould had suggested that she was a woman quite incapable of behaving in the despicable way alleged against her, Judge Rowlands said.
“The jury found that he was very wrong about that.
“You plainly fall to be sentenced for behaving in a totally despicable way towards Jamie Lea Jones and the money to which she was entitled.”
He told her: “You were very kind to her over the years. She was a vulnerable young woman looking forward to that money.
“You took half of it and frankly from where I am sitting you frittered it away.”
Judge Rowlands said that he did not understand why, when the Jones family confronted her and asked her to pay the money back, she arrogantly ignored them.
“That landed you in this court,” he said.
She had been convicted on overwhelming evidence.
It was a serious case which passed the custody threshold.
Two features would be considered when it came to be decided whether the sentence would be suspended or not.
She had a child aged six to care for – and more importantly the issue of whether or not she could start repaying the money she had taken.
The defendant had failed to repay anything to date and if she arrogantly said that she was not going to do so then the probable consequence was that she would go to prison, he said.
Griffiths, a mum of three and part time school dinner lady who had no previous convictions, was bailed pending sentence subject to a 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. tagged curfew.
Prosecutor David Mainstone said Griffiths was motivated by money and had told a number of lies to try and get away with stealing the inheritance left to the victim by her grandparents.
Her two uncles had trusted the defendant to do the right thing but she placed some of the money in her own account and used money as her own, he said.
Later she opened up an account in the victim’s name but was a signatory to the account and continued to take money out of it.
She had claimed that the young woman’s grandparents and one of her uncles had told her she could have half of the money.
The court heard how the victim’s mother Valerie Jones died in February 2003.
Griffiths looked after her daughter before she died and took her in after her death, becoming her legal guardian.
In evidence, Jamie Lea Jones said that she moved out when she was 18 and found that instead of £50,000 there was about £25,000 in the account.
Griffiths had told her that she had been entitled to take half and when she checked with her uncle, an executor, he told her she was not.
She said she had been reluctant to make a formal complaint because of the rift it would cause.
Her uncle Stephen Jones told the jury: “I just trusted her to do the right thing.”
In evidence, through tears, Griffiths said she had been told she was entitled to half the money because of everything she had done over the years and denied acting dishonestly.
The money had been spent on paying bills and general living expenses, not on any lavish life-style, she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment