Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judge found guilty of fraud

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Judge found guilty of fraud

    Landmark decision finds judge guilty of trying to deceive elderly friend By Conor Gallagher
    Wednesday, November 21, 2012
    A district court judge has been convicted of attempting to deceive her elderly friend out of half of his estate while he was a client of her solicitors’ firm.
    Heather Perrin, aged 60, was found guilty by a jury yesterday after a seven-day trial which heard she tricked her victim into bequeathing half his estate, worth about €1m, to her two children.

    Perrin ran a solicitors’ practice in north Dublin before being appointed a district court judge in Feb 2009, a month after she carried out the scam.

    The jury returned a guilty verdict after three hours and 43 minutes of deliberation.

    The judge was remanded on continuing bail until Nov 28 for sentencing. She was ordered to surrender her passport to Malahide Garda Station by 3.30pm yesterday.

    Perrin, of Lambay Court, Malahide, had pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to deceptively inducing Mr Davis to bequeath half of his estate to Sybil and Adam Perrin, at her office on Fairview Strand on Jan 22, 2009.

    She faces a maximum jail term of five years.

    She is the first judge in the history of the State to be convicted of a serious crime. She is on long-term sick leave and can only be removed from the bench by the Oireachtas.

    According to the prosecuting counsel Dominic McGinn SC, Perrin fought the case using "lies, half-truths, and deceptions". When the scam first came to light she claimed it was a mistake by her secretary but later claimed she had drafted the will in line with Mr Davis’s instructions.

    Her defence team suggested that Mr Davis, who is in his 80s, suffered from memory problems and had forgotten leaving half his estate to the Perrin children.

    The prosecution produced medical evidence that Mr Davis had a good mental capacity and no memory problems.

    The trial heard that Thomas and Ada Davis decided to make their wills with Perrin before she was officially made a judge.

    Mr Davis gave instructions to leave €2,000 each to various churches, €2,000 each to Perrin’s children, and split everything else between his two nieces.

    When he went into her office to sign the will he was not given an opportunity to read it nor was it read over to him. He said he did not have a problem with this as he trusted Perrin.

    The trial heard that the will Mr Davis signed actually split his estate between his nieces and Perrin’s two children.

    When a new law firm took over Perrin’s practice they wrote to the Davis’s querying several irregularities in their legal documents.

    Eventually the firm examined Mr Davis’s will and noticed the bequest to the Perrin children.
    It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

    Every plan I have is the best plan in the room. Everybody get quiet and listen to it, and everybody will win

    #2
    Absolutely amazing case, surprised it isn't much bigger news.
    It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

    Every plan I have is the best plan in the room. Everybody get quiet and listen to it, and everybody will win

    Comment


      #3
      Can't see her doing time. Quietly shuffled out the back door maybe
      Con Artist

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Valencia View Post
        Can't see her doing time. Quietly shuffled out the back door maybe
        I doubt she'll do time either but it's absolutely fascinating. She must have known she was about to be appointed a judge so why run the risk, a massive risk, that late in her career?
        It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

        Every plan I have is the best plan in the room. Everybody get quiet and listen to it, and everybody will win

        Comment


          #5
          Greed.
          Please support Milford Hospice. Click here to donate.

          Comment


            #6
            Think she will do time. 2 years I'd say.
            Example has to be set. Dochas has facilities to cater for prisoners like her - she'll be in semi open conditions with day release quite quickly.

            Comment


              #7
              I wonder will she still get her "top hat" pension?
              Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue,
              Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn bork! bork! bork!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by John Cooper Clarke View Post
                I wonder will she still get her "top hat" pension?
                Apprently, yes, because unless both houses of the Oireachtas remove her judgeship (??) she's still a judge... T78 will probably know the details, but that's what was on the news this morning.
                The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw


                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by John Cooper Clarke View Post
                  I wonder will she still get her "top hat" pension?
                  if she's entitled to it, yes

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by SecondRowGal View Post
                    Apprently, yes, because unless both houses of the Oireachtas remove her judgeship (??) she's still a judge... T78 will probably know the details, but that's what was on the news this morning.
                    You need five years to get a pension. She's done three. Even if she gets a non-custodial - and I think she'll get a custodial - she'll be called in after any appeal is concluded for the equivalent of a chat and being left with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver. That, or impeachment will follow. She will, as a matter of likelihood, be gone before she'd be eligible.
                    Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by fitzy73 View Post
                      Greed.
                      Or desperation. If half the lawyers in this country are even breaking even, it's as much. At the Bar, I'd reckon it's under 40% break even, let alone pay down accrued debt.
                      Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Thomond78 View Post
                        Or desperation. If half the lawyers in this country are even breaking even, it's as much. At the Bar, I'd reckon it's under 40% break even, let alone pay down accrued debt.
                        Very long game for an act of desperation, and somewhat unsteady too, considering the will could have been changed at any time. When you consider she was about to get the winning lotto ticket that is a judge's salary and pension she'd have to be massively in hock to risk such a weird action, and even so, she could hardly bring the will to her debtors to fob them off.

                        I'd be fairly sure she's guilty but it's inexplicable, imo, to run that risk. You'd have to wonder what other horrors are hidden in her files. You also have to wonder how she felt the will would stand up to any sort of challenge, presuambly the nieces would have some inkling of their inheritance.
                        It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

                        Every plan I have is the best plan in the room. Everybody get quiet and listen to it, and everybody will win

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Thomond78 View Post
                          Or desperation. If half the lawyers in this country are even breaking even, it's as much. At the Bar, I'd reckon it's under 40% break even, let alone pay down accrued debt.
                          Many of the remaining 60% might be better advised to change career tack then. If that profession isn't profitable now there's no reason to think it'll change anytime soon.

                          Keep doing the same thing, and you'll keep getting the same results.
                          Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue,
                          Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn bork! bork! bork!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by John Cooper Clarke View Post
                            Many of the remaining 60% might be better advised to change career tack then. If that profession isn't profitable now there's no reason to think it'll change anytime soon.

                            Keep doing the same thing, and you'll keep getting the same results.
                            Separate discussion but yes, almost certainly. We're seeing the death of the small one or two person solicitor firms imo. Hard to know what will happen with barristers but plenty of them are fleeing the profession and more and more solicitors are comfortable with using their audience rights in the courts. Interesting times etc.
                            It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

                            Every plan I have is the best plan in the room. Everybody get quiet and listen to it, and everybody will win

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by JoeyFantastic View Post
                              Very long game for an act of desperation, and somewhat unsteady too, considering the will could have been changed at any time. When you consider she was about to get the winning lotto ticket that is a judge's salary and pension she'd have to be massively in hock to risk such a weird action, and even so, she could hardly bring the will to her debtors to fob them off.

                              I'd be fairly sure she's guilty but it's inexplicable, imo, to run that risk. You'd have to wonder what other horrors are hidden in her files. You also have to wonder how she felt the will would stand up to any sort of challenge, presuambly the nieces would have some inkling of their inheritance.
                              Would it have been that easy to challenge though? Nieces have no automatic right to inherit obviously, so could a Court say for sure that it wasn't his intention to divide up the estate based on how she had done so in the Will? Given that he had intended to leave her children something anyway there was obviously a close friendship there.

                              T78, would have to agree with Joey on the motivation. If she new she was on the way to the Bench then she can't have felt that desperate.
                              "It’s not the team you support, it’s the club you should support. The team on the pitch will ebb and flow because that’s the nature of sport. No team has ever been successful decade on decade. The club has the history and that’s the passion you should have."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X