The Royal Court sent Christine Ann Peet, 65, to prison for two years after she admitted a charge of fraud by false representation.
Judge Catherine Fooks said the court had identified three victims in the case. There was the woman’s mother, Peet’s sister, who was a joint beneficiary to her mother’s will, and taxpayers, who were now paying the woman’s care home fees.
‘This was a shocking breach of trust by you and you are absolutely right to be devastated,’ said Judge Fooks.
‘You were entrusted to look after your mother’s money and you took all of it.’
Peet initially denied the offence. She then entered a guilty plea last October but on the basis that she had not known that her actions were dishonest and a hearing was planned to determine on what evidence she would be sentenced.
Before this could happen, she accepted her guilt.
Crown Advocate Chris Dunford told the court that in late 2020 the defendant’s mother had been diagnosed as no longer having the mental capacity to manage her own affairs.
In December that year Peet was appointed as her legal guardian. Her advocate at the time made it clear to her that she had to act in the best interests of her mother at all times and consult with the family council.
The woman had to go in to permanent care and in July 2021 £316,984 was credited to her bank account following the sale of her home.
Peet began using the money for her own benefit two days later.
Money was used to fund things such as work on her home, online purchases, and to pay the rent arrears of other family members.
Her offending came to light in July 2023 after she contacted Social Security to make a claim for income support to help fund her mother’s care home fees.
By this time her mother had only just over £18,000 left.
Peet was asked to provide her mother’s bank statements, which was when it was discovered that large amounts of money had been transferred to her accounts. Peet told Social Security that she had been naive over the matter.
She was reminded that she had a duty to ensure that sufficient money was retained so she could pay her mother’s care home fees for the rest of her life.
Defending, Advocate Natasha Newell said her client accepted that nothing she did should have trumped the duty she had towards her mother. ‘In her words, she feels she deserves whatever she gets,’ she said.
She asked the court to mindful of her remorse and a heartfelt letter of apology she had written to the court. Peet’s family were sticking by her and even her sister, the other beneficiary from the will, had spoken up for her. She urged the court to impose a non-custodial penalty.
Judge Fooks said the defendant’s actions had breached the fiduciary duties she had towards her mother. There had been no reasonable explanation as to how the money had been spent. The defendant had claimed that her mother, on a date after the guardianship had been made, had told her that the money could be used for her own needs.
‘In our view you have shown a slow acceptance that your actions were wrong and we reject absolutely any suggestions of naivety on your part,’ she said.
A non-custodial penalty would not be appropriate in this case, she added.
The prosecution’s application for a confiscation order was granted. The money must be repaid in full on the sale of the defendant’s home, or within 12 months, whichever comes first.
