A judge said the ‘ridiculous idea’ was ‘doomed to failure’
A “ridiculous” plan cooked up by a devious trickster to sabotage the results of a DNA sample – by cynically sending a friend to a test clinic instead of going there himself – backfired badly when the half-baked scheme was foiled and his true identity was discovered. It was an “act of gross stupidity” that was “doomed to failure” and the truth finally emerged when photograph evidence proved that there had been an unscrupulous attempt to fox the authorities, Hull Crown Court heard.
Stephen Lord, 27, of Hainsworth Park, Hull, and his friend, Simon Brooks, 31, of St James Road, Leicester, admitted conspiracy to defraud the Department for Work and Pensions between September 21, 2022 and March 13 last year. Brooks also admitted fraud by pretending to be Lord on November 1, 2022, to avoid the payment of child maintenance by Lord.
Harry Bradford, prosecuting, said that a woman made an application for child maintenance on June 10, 2022 and named Lord as being liable for paying it. He denied that this was the case and claimed that this had been shown in a private DNA test some years earlier. There was some suspicion about this, however.
The Child Maintenance Service advised that, for a DNA test to be valid, it would have to be completed by one of its forensic providers. A test was arranged for November 1, 2022.
An appointment was set up with a doctor and a DNA sample was taken. The photograph that was taken to the appointment by the man attending the clinic was not deemed to be sufficient to attach to the sample and another one was requested.
The doctor believed that the man who provided the sample was Lord and declarations on paperwork were signed to confirm this. It transpired, however, that this was not the case and it was, in fact, Brooks who attended the appointment.
As the photograph that he took with him was not sufficient, it was agreed that he would send another via post to the surgery so that this could be attached to the sample paperwork.
In November 2022, the woman received the DNA results back saying that Lord was not the person involved. She assumed that this must be correct as Lord would have been required to go a centre to have the test done.
Things came to light when she contacted the Child Maintenance Service to ask to see the photograph that had been provided with the sample given. During a video call with the service, the woman was shown the photograph attached to the DNA sample.
She immediately recognised it to show Brooks and not Lord. On October 6 of that year, a sample was taken from Lord by investigators for the Child Maintenance Service. He was arrested on March 13 last year. He provided a statement denying that he had sent anyone else to do the DNA test. Brooks was arrested on March 18 last year.
His phone was seized and a DNA sample was taken from him. It was noticed that the DNA sample taken on November 1, 2022, supposedly from Lord, matched the profile obtained from the sample taken from Brooks.
Messages on the phone of Brooks showed that he and Lord discussed the DNA test and edited a photograph to send to the clinic to attach to the sample. It was estimated that the loss to the woman as a result of the fraud was about £4,637 but this was due to be “back paid” to cover it, said Mr Bradford. If the deception had been successful, she could have faced a potential loss of about £29,132.
Stephen Robinson, mitigating, said that Lord pleaded guilty and had no previous convictions. “This was an act of gross stupidity doomed to failure but serious,” said Mr Robinson.
Lord was in work and he was paying child maintenance as well as the back-dated amount. “The actual loss will be recovered,” said Mr Robinson. “There is a much better side to him. The defendant knows that he needs to be punished.”
Samantha Laws, representing Brooks, said: “This was an act of gross stupidity from both of these defendants.” Brooks had no previous convictions.
Judge John Thackray KC told Lord: “This was an act of gross stupidity doomed to failure.” Lord had the “ridiculous idea” of trying to avoid paying out child maintenance. “You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself,” said Judge Thackray.
Lord was given an eight-month suspended prison sentence and 150 hours’ unpaid work. Brooks was given nine months suspended and 100 hours’ unpaid work.