Glenn Parsons will undertake all types of proceeds-of-crime work. He also has experience of prosecution work for the General Medical Council (GMC).
- R v Marks, NE and PS – Norwich Crown Court – Representing NE, one of 2 motorway maintenance men who were charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving and Death by Careless Driving, together with aiding and abetting counts, following a collision on the 26th February 2019. It was the prosecution case that the defendants had been required by their employers to collect litter from the side of the southbound carriageway of the A11 Attleborough, just outside Norwich and that both defendants had parked their works vehicles in tandem, partially in lane 1 of a dual carriageway, instead of pulling them fully onto the grass verge, thereby causing an obvious obstruction to other road users. Thereafter, an 18-ton Renault lorry being driven by the first defendant, Darren Marks, failed to notice that the defendants’ vehicles had stopped partially in lane 1. Marks drove into the back of the rear van, which had been left in situ by NE. The impact killed Mr Mark’s passenger. The Crown alleged that the parking of the vehicles so that they encroached into a live carriage was ‘dangerous’ and that in doing so, NE and PS were acting against the specific instructions of their employers.
The case for NE and PS relied in part on evidence from an expert collision investigator, in order to prove that Mr Marks had failed to see the vehicles from nearly a third of a mile away because of his own gross inattention when behind the wheel. Telematics from Mark’s lorry showed that he had been driving at 56 mph, on cruise control and that he had only braked, 1/2 second before the collision occurred, proving that he had not seen the maintenance vehicles until he had hit them. In addition, following a full investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, It was further the defence case that the employer’s guidance had been ambiguous and that in fact, the defendants were performing the task in line with how they had been trained although they had been labouring under an unsafe system of work. Mr Marks pleaded guilty to Causing Death by Careless Driving, before the trial started. The jury acquitted both NE and PS of all charges, following a 2 week trial.
- R v Gahr – Instructed on behalf of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise to prosecute Sebastian Gahr, who was a 41 year old Belgium lorry driver, charged with smuggling 5.2 million cigarettes into the United Kingdom. It was estimated that the duty that would have been evaded, had he been successful, was in excess £1.3m. However, UK Border Force Officers stopped the lorry as it entered the St George Docks, Hull, having crossed from the Euro-Port at Rotterdam, on the morning of 13/6/18. Gahr claimed to be carrying soil and gardening equipment bound for Liverpool, however officers suspicions were raised by Gahr’s nervous disposition and upon further investigation, pallets of contraband cigarettes found concealed behind the bags of soil. Gahr claimed to have been unaware of the presence of the cigarettes and stated that he had picked the wagon up at short notice in layby near his home in Kinrooi, Belgium, after another driver had fallen ill. However, investigations in both the UK and Belgium, confirmed that Gahr had been a party to securing the hire of the truck and trailer. In addition, detailed analysis of his mobile phone cell site and sat nav downloads further undermined Gahr’s account. Sebastian Gahr was convicted by unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to 4 1/2 years custody.
- R v Francis and Loveridge- Successfully prosecuted 2 defendants involved in a Conspiracy to Defraud concerning the targeting of elderly and infirm victims. The defendants purported to run various roofing and home maintenance businesses and they would approach elderly and vulnerable victims on the pretext that urgent work needed to be done on their roofs and driveways. In many cases the work was not undertaken at all, while in other cases the work was done to such a poor standard that it was in fact worthless. In most of the cases the victims were grossly overcharged and some paid money and the defendants returned demanding further additional payments. The value of the Frauds was in excess of £20,000. Prison sentences of 18 months and 3 years were passed and compensation and costs were also ordered.
- R v AXL1 Ltd Trading as Alexander Snee – The defendant company were trading in used cars. A successful prosecution was brought by City of York Trading Standards following numerous complaints by customers. Convictions were secured by Mr Parsons in relation to Breach of a Safety Notice and an offence pursuant to regulation 8 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Contract Terms regulations 2008. The defendant company were fined £2000 and full compensation was awarded to the aggrieved consumers.
- R v Wild and Holly – Successfully prosecuted 2 fraudsters who were convicted following a 3 week trial at Leeds Crown Court. The prosecution was brought and funded by City of York Trading standards following an extensive investigation into the York Based Estate-Management company Yorkshire Assets Protection (YAP). Over 30 elderly and vulnerable witnesses were called to give evidence concerning the products that they were sold by YAP which included wills, Lasting Powers of Attorney and Property Trusts, the latter being sold on the basis that they would shield the purchaser from local authority care costs should the purchaser be taken into care. However, many of the products were worthless or were simply not provided. The jury convicted both the defendants of running a fraudulent company and of Consumer Trading offences. One defendant was also convicted of making fraudulent statements about the law and of making false claims that he was a solicitor.
- R v White and Montgomery – Successfully prosecuted 2 defendants, in a case brought by City of York Trading Standards pursuant to Regulation 3, 8 and 13 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading, Regulations 2008. The defendants were trading under the name of Ripon Building Specialists. They were were contracted by the lady complainant, who had impaired vision and was registered disabled, to build an extension at her home. The complainant paid over £21,000 to the defendants however, the extension they constructed, was so poorly built, defective and unsafe that the local authority issued not 1 but 2 Building Contravention Notices. The complainant’s attempt to put right the numerous defects, or recover her money, were met with threats and abuse from the defendants. Following conviction £10,000 was paid back to the complainant by the defendants and a full compensation order of £13,870 was made in her favour. The defendants received suspended sentences of 13 months and 10 months respectively.
- R v Quinn and Quinn – Prosecuting on behalf of Durham Trading Standards Authority. Convictions obtained after a trial for Fraudulent Trading and Tax Evasion in relation to 2 bothers Ross and Luke Quinn who ran online retail businesses over a 2 year period which were run fraudulently. The Frauds involved the setting up of internet businesses selling such things as hot-tubs, ride on lawnmowers and Tub furniture. The goods were advertised online, often at very low prices. Payments were made by unsuspecting shoppers, either online or by bank transfer, followed by the non-delivery of the purchased goods. All subsequent requests for refunds were ignored and eventually the company in question would be go into liquidation and either Ross or Luke Quinn would then set up a new online retail businesses, with different products, but with the same patterns of frauds resulting. In total the frauds netted the brothers in excess of £600,000.00. In addition, the brothers failed to pay any tax and were convicted of tax evasion to the amount of £400,000.00. Luke Quinn was sentenced to a total of 4 years custody and was disqualified from being a Company Direction for 9 years. Ross Quinn was sentenced to a total of 6 ½ years custody and was disqualified from being a Company Director for 13yrs 3 months. The case involved the in-depth knowledge of Fraud legislation, Financial Accounting and Tax Law.