Fraudster told she can't challenge her convictions because appeal is 'meritless'

63-year-old likely to serve prison time in default of repayments

A convicted fraudster has been told she can’t challenge her convictions, sentence or the punishment handed down because her appeal is ‘meritless’.

Wendy Elizabeth Megson had taken her case to the Staff of Government Division of the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man.

In a judgement, handed down earlier this month, Judge of Appeal Anthony Cross KC and Acting Deemster Sir Nigel Teare ruled that the case against her had been ‘overwhelming’.

Convicted

In June last year the 63-year-old was convicted, after trial, of the following:

• Two offences contrary to the Charities Registration and Regulation Act
• One offence contrary to the Theft Act
• One offence contrary to the Fraud Act
• Nine offences contrary to the Social Security Administration Act

Megson had described her organisation – Manx Equitherapy Limited – as a charity and had ‘misappropriated’ another charity's number in order to give the impression it was registered.

She’d also solicited donations for it and submitted false documentation to obtain relief from the fees that she would have otherwise had to pay.

Megson also claimed benefits from Treasury claiming she wasn’t working when she was; in total she was overpaid more than £31,000.

Appeal

In July Megson lodged a handwritten notice of appeal which the judges said appeared to indicate her wish to ‘appeal against the decisions of various judiciary’.

She was instructed by the Isle of Man Courts of Justice to provide a properly completed notice of appeal but this was not lodged in time.

In September 2023 Megson was sentenced in her absence to 39 months in prison after refusing to attend court in person or via live video link.

In February this year Megson once again refused to come to court in relation to Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings.

Megson was ordered to repay £169,852.67, within six months, or face an additional 30 months in prison in default.

In respect of the Social Security offences she was ordered to pay £31,006.30 or face an additional six months custody.

She was also told to pay £5,700 towards prosecution costs or serve an additional two months behind bars.

On 25 March this year Megson did lodge a notice of appeal but this was ruled out of time in relation to the conviction and sentence.

'Duress'

In her appeal Megson argued that the trial deemster, Deemster Graeme Cook, had been biased against her and had behaved in a way that amounted to misconduct.

She also claimed she’d been subject to ‘duress’, was ‘coerced’ ‘entrapped’ ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘treated unfairly’.

However the appeal judges ruled that the sentence she’d received fell within the ‘reasonable ambit’ of the sentencing guidelines in England and Wales particularly as she did not put forward any mitigation.

They said any suggestion she could not be tried fairly as ‘patent nonsense’ and her suggestions that the case was ‘complex’ were a ‘creature of her imagination’.

In their judgement they add: “The allegations were not complex matters at all.

“The evidence was straightforward and required an explanation from the appellant.

“Instead she chose silence at interview, failed to provide a defence case statement and refused when invited to put her case to a witness, instead seeking to ask questions that were irrelevant to the case that had to be tried.”

The judges rejected any suggestion of bias against the judiciary saying both the high bailiff and the deemster had gone to ‘extraordinary lengths’ to accommodate Megson when she was being ‘deliberately obstructive’.

They added that she had sought to use her lack of legal representation as a ‘weapon’ and that they were ‘completely satisfied’ that no injustice had occurred.

No grounds to appeal

In conclusion the appeal judges confirmed they would not give her leave to appeal saying there was no merit to her application because she’d had the opportunity to cooperate and did not.

They added that Megson had ‘made it plain’ that she would never cooperate with the execution of the POCA orders and instead intends to serve the sentences in default of payment of costs, compensation and the confiscation order.