Compassionate reporters

And a ruthless con-woman totally lacking in empathy

A judge asked reporters to show compassion yesterday when referring to the victims of a serial fraudster who exploited men for money.

“You were a financial predator always on the prowl for easy prey,” Judge Jason Taylor KC told Gemma Kingsley, 50. “You are a con-woman who traded on her charm, charisma and good looks to entice and ensnare victims without any regard to the trial of destruction being left behind in your wake.”

A police officer serves a summons on Kingsley (Wiltshire Police)

Wiltshire police said they had discovered last May that Kingsley was living in a remote cottage in the Scottish Highlands, where she was served with a summons to attend Swindon magistrates’ court. She failed to appear and was subsequently arrested on the Isle of Skye after a car in which she was travelling was stopped for speeding.

Sentencing her at Swindon crown court to seven years and seven months in prison, the judge said Kingsley had persistently and manipulatively pulled whatever lever she thought necessary to extract as much as she could to fund an extravagant lifestyle. Her principal lever was emotional, convincing men that their sincere feelings for her were reciprocated.

“Two were recently divorced and, to some degree, more vulnerable and exposed because of that,” Taylor added.

One of Kingsley’s victims told the court she had defrauded him of £30,000 and described the impact of her behaviour:

It has had a significant financial, emotional, psychological and personal impact on me which continues to be felt more than six years later. Kingsley’s conduct amounted to a sustained, devious and uncaring campaign to further her own interests by exploiting my trust and willingness to help others.

Even when it was clear that her actions were causing me confusion and distress, she continued and went further still by falsely claiming to be pregnant with twins at the point when I was trying to extricate myself. Her behaviour extended to coercing her own children, manipulating my daughter and causing deep concern among my family and friends.

I was subjected to sustained deception combined with emotional manipulation, shifting explanations and repeated assurances that matters were “in hand”. The anxiety I experienced was unlike anything I had felt before, driven by the growing realisation that her behaviour would have a lifetime’s impact on me.

In his sentencing remarks, the judge made an unusual appeal to reporters:

I would respectfully ask that those who choose to report this case do so with compassion. As is often the case in cases of this type the victims suffer with acute embarrassment and self-blame. They needn’t. But they do.

I have already been made aware of some insensitive intrusions into their private lives which has not only impacted these men but also their children. Even if not intended, that is regrettable. And whilst I hope today brings closure, their suffering will only be compounded unless any further reporting is done with discretion.

The story should be told. But it may be felt that it can properly be told by the victims being referred to by their initials only, as I have done. This is not a reporting restriction but simply an invitation for the same level of sensitivity that one might hope for if it was a journalist’s father or brother.

As far as I can see, reporters have complied with the judge’s request.

Ethical standards

Legal regulators must do more to enforce ethical standards, their oversight regulator says in a statutory policy statement published today.

The Legal Services Board tells bodies such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board they must have a framework of rules, regulations, guidance and other resources which make clear that professional ethical duties are integral to the way authorised lawyers are expected to behave and act throughout their careers.

The board’s chief executive, Richard Orpin, said this would help reinforce public trust, support the rule of law and ensure that legal services better serve the public interest and the wider economy.

Meanwhile the government’s preferred candidate to chair the Legal Services Board has appeared before the Commons justice committee as part of the pre-appointment scrutiny process.

Monisha Shah was asked twice yesterday by Andy Slaughter MP, the committee chair, whether she would stand down as chair of King’s Counsel Selection Panel if her appointment was confirmed. He put to her, as I argued here two weeks ago, that there would be practical problems and a potential conflict of interest if she continued to perform both roles.

Shah disagreed and made it clear that she intended to remain chair of the KC panel for the duration of that appointment. The committee reserved judgment.

Update 27 March: in a report today, MPs say:

The committee endorses the appointment of Monisha Shah as chair of the Legal Services Board.

The MPs made no comment on her suitability for the job or her response to its questions.

Appendix 4 to the committee’s report contains Shah’s written responses to some of the concerns raised.

Undocked?

A report today recommends that defendants in magistrates’ courts should be allowed to sit in the main courtroom rather than in the dock unless there are security risks. It says the current practice makes it harder for defendants to hear the proceedings and, if they are legally represented, to speak to their lawyers.

Transform Justice, a campaign group, recruited volunteer observers to watch proceedings in London magistrates’ courts last year. They noted that defendants on bail would routinely be told to sit in a secure dock at the back of the court, separated from the courtroom by a Perspex screen, even though the dock door might be left unlocked and there was no security guard.