(Image: The Northern Echo)
A man drained his late father’s bank accounts, leaving him with little more than £150 a few months before his death.
Ashley Woods, who was trusted to look after father, Michael Woods’ financial affairs, was permitted to use some of his funds for his own benefit.
But Durham Crown Court heard that it was on the proviso that he should always leave £4,000 in his father’s current account.
The court was told Woods transferred £20,254 into his own account over a nine-month period from May 2022, and his father was left with only £153 in his current account, by January 2023.
Durham Crown Court was told defendant Ashley Woods drained father's bank account to the point there was only £153 left in, months before his death
(Image: The Northern Echo)
Caroline McGurk, prosecuting, said Mr Woods’ senior died, aged 68, in November 2023.
She said he led a relatively frugal lifestyle and lived on benefit and a PIP until he received a lump sum of £18,952 from his pension fund, in May 2022.
Miss McGurk said he also received £10,942 in benefits in that time and, “should have lived for the rest of his life in financial comfort”.
But by January 18, 2023, there was only £153 in his current account and £2.32 in his savings account, as his son had “dipped” into the £4,000 “cut off” fund to the tune of £3,846.
When interviewed, the defendant denied any wrongdoing and said the money transferred from his father’s current account was only to reimburse him for money he had spent on his dad’s behalf.
Miss McGurk described it as, “an abuse of power, trust and responsibility”, aggravated by the defendant wrongly placing blame on his father, saying he had spent it all on alcohol.
Woods, 43, of Tenth Street, Blackhall Colliery, denied a charge of fraud by abuse of position.
He was convicted following a five-day trial at the court in February.
Sentence was adjourned to allow for preparation of background reports on the defendant by the Probation Service and the liaison and divergence team.
Kate Barnes, in mitigation, said given the agreement about the “cut off figure”, the amount illegally transferred to the defendant was, in the end, less than £4,000.
“While, of course a breach of trust, it was not, a high impact case.”
She said the defendant was, “plainly spending sums on behalf of his father.”
Although Miss Barnes conceded it could be a case capable of attracting a custodial sentence, it could be in the range where it could be suspended, as the defendant was of previous good character.
“The offence was in 2022 – 2023 and there has been no repetition and there’s a low risk of him reoffending.”
She said the defendant was unemployed and is on benefits, himself.
Judge Richard Clews told Woods he had been convicted six months ago, and it was, “unfortunate it’s taken so long to reach the point of sentence.”
The judge noted that the defendant still does not accept he has committed the offence.
“It would have been better if you accepted the verdict of the jury.
“Obviously, your father is now deceased and can’t hear what you have said about him in the probation report.
“I can’t help but observe that it’s unfortunate you see fit to speak about him in the way you did when you spoke to the probation officer.
“I have seen the video he did with the police giving his evidence before he passed away.
“He can’t be described as an evil person.”
The judge said had he been dealing with the full amount transferred by Woods from his father, the situation the defendant finds himself in would have been “considerably worse”.
Judge Clews told Woods: “It’s not possible how all of this came to happen, but your father spoke reasonably and truthfully and there was no reason for him to have made any complaint to the police unless what he told the police was true.
“I’m prepared to accept some expenditure was likely to have been authorised by him and the most that can be said it amounts to in this case was £3,846.90.
“Although he wasn’t well, he had his faculties about him and didn’t lack mental capacity, while his age, only 68, wasn’t particularly advanced when he passed away.
“Your father, on the face of it, didn’t spend a great deal of money, anyway and wasn’t saving.”
The judge said he accepted the impact on the victim is likely to have been “incredibly limited”.
“The reality is that because he did pass away when he did, you may have ended up with it, anyway, and so, there’s grounds to suspend sentence.”
Passing a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, he ordered Woods to perform 100 hours’ unpaid work and pay £500 court costs.