Disgraced MP sentenced for fiddling expenses (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Disgraced MP Margaret Moran sentenced for fiddling expenses to pay for repairs to Southampton home
11:21am Friday 14th December 2012 in News
Margaret Moran
FORMER Labour MP Margaret Moran has been given a two-year supervision and treatment order for fiddling expenses to receive more than £53,000 from the taxpayer.
Moran, 57, who represented Luton South for 13 years, claimed nearly her entire annual allowance in one bogus expense entry and forged invoices for more than £20,000 for non-existent goods and services.
She used parliamentary expenses to pay for repairs to a house in the St. Denys area of Southampton, over 100 miles from her constituency in Luton.
The disgraced former MP's claims were the largest amount uncovered in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal, but she does not receive a criminal conviction after a judge ruled she was unfit to stand trial for mental health reasons.
She was sentenced today at Southwark Crown Court to a two year supervision and treatment order, to be supervised by Southampton City Council.
Mrs Moran was not present at Southwark to hear Mr Justice Saunders make the ruling.
He said: ''There will inevitably be feelings among some that Mrs Moran has 'got away with it'.
''What the court has done and has to do is to act in accordance with the law of the land and on the basis of the evidence that it hears.''
The judge said two distinguished psychiatrists instructed by the defence had concluded she was unfit to plead, and a psychiatrist instructed by the prosecution broadly agreed.
''All the evidence in the case was that she was unfit to plead. If I had reached any other conclusion my decision would have been perverse and would inevitably have been successfully appealed.''
A jury decided that she did the acts alleged against her, and the defence played little if any part in the hearing.
''The findings of the court were not convictions. Those findings enable me to make orders requiring her to undergo treatment for her mental health.'
Dr Simon Kelly, from the Priory Hospital in Marchwood, said that he last saw Moran on Tuesday.
''She remains very distressed, very agitated, she is severely ill.
''She is unable really to process information that is presented to her.
''What she seeks today is to recover from her illness and continue to engage in treatment.
''She's living a restricted lifestyle, she's not answered the telephone at home for approximately three years, she goes out very occasionally, to a local supermarket for 30 minutes.
''She recently acquired a terrier cross dog, two years ago, and tends to walk him as well.''
She said a newspaper article on November 25 was ''deeply distressing to her''.
It was reported then that she had been spotted at a pub.
Asked how it had affected her illness, Dr Kelly said: ''She experienced panic attacks, nightmares and believes that she is going to be doorstepped at any point.''
Asked how she would have reacted if she had to come to court, he said: ''She is so sensitised to publicity, this would have been the most difficult place for her to come. I wonder physically whether it would be possible to get her here.
''I don't know whether it would be physically possible to remove her from her home without restraining her.''
Jim Sturman, representing Mrs Moran, said: ''The more vengeful press, who hound her at her front door, seem to think that the only way someone can be demonstrably mentally ill is if they are in a straitjacket in a padded cell.
''The reports back in April all agree that she suffers from this mental illness.
''Hounding a mentally ill woman is a dangerous and vile thing to do, at any time, particularly post the Leveson conclusions.
''It could have led to an increased risk of suicide.
''There will always be sections of the media who believe it's a huge con. But they've not read all the evidence.''
Mr Sturman said he was making these observations on behalf of Mrs Moran's husband.
The judge said the order would be under the supervision of a mental health social worker employed by Southampton City Council, and Mrs Moran would be treated by Dr Kelly, with a view to the improvement of her medical condition.
The judge also said that his rulings were limited to criminal proceedings.
''They do not affect any steps that may be taken through the civil courts to recover any money that Mrs Moran has received to which she was not entitled.''
Louis Mably, representing the Crown, said the matter was under consideration.
Comments(25)
Lionel P
says...
11:31am Fri 14 Dec 12
hulla baloo
says...
11:52am Fri 14 Dec 12
Higginz
says...
12:17pm Fri 14 Dec 12
She should be securely housed in an psychiatric hospital, until such time as she is fit enough to leave, and THEN sentenced appropriately.
Paramjit Bahia
says...
12:32pm Fri 14 Dec 12
The judge is spot on that there will be the feeling that she got away with it. What else people can think because Moran was not moron when fiddling unbelievable amounts in faked allowances?
Thanks to her our City's name got associated with dry rot related false claim and fake receipts, and now our short for cash Council will have to pick the bill for her care.
Why so far her property or properties she made false claim for have not been confiscated and auctioned to recover some of the money back?
Exploiting of post Leveson pressures on the press could be another clever con trick to cool the scandal down, in this case press should be allowed to do a proper investigative job, because it certainly is a matter of public interest, which also includes the former MP's health.
I don't think anybody would wish her to harm herself but do the honourable thing during season of good will....by paying the fiddled money back and stop viewing the court judgement as early arrival of Santa through the chimney of house in Ivey Road.
Linesman
says...
12:38pm Fri 14 Dec 12
hulla baloo wrote:Maybe, but not as an MP.
What a whitewash. What are the odds on a miraculous recovery and working again soon.
At least this abuse came to light, and the government did not attempt to supress it, like the government minister who is now under investigation.
Independent Thought
says...
12:55pm Fri 14 Dec 12
I bet it will be brushed under the carpet and, irrespective of her illness, she will be in theory £53k better off!
Lowe-Ryder
says...
1:21pm Fri 14 Dec 12
"Asked how she would have reacted if she had to come to court, he said: ''She is so sensitised to publicity, this would have been the most difficult place for her to come. I wonder physically whether it would be possible to get her here."
Funny that - I don't think I'd really want to go to court either, knowing I was very likley going to be sent to jail!
skin2000
says...
1:32pm Fri 14 Dec 12
SPIKEISLANDTRADER
says...
1:36pm Fri 14 Dec 12
acid drop
says...
1:41pm Fri 14 Dec 12
beiroot
says...
2:20pm Fri 14 Dec 12
moocowpoorchick
says...
2:35pm Fri 14 Dec 12
st1halo
says...
3:29pm Fri 14 Dec 12
Got away with it? More like made a monkey out of the court system as per normal these days.
The "in mitigation" section of defenses should be limited to "whilst the crime occured" as far as I am concerned. That way any consequent hardship suffered is just a resulting part of the punishment and could be disregarded by the courts!
st1halo
says...
3:36pm Fri 14 Dec 12
Not only do we pay our taxes so that greedy people like her can come along and steal it, then we pay for court officials to try and recover it, and finally we pay for a psychiatrist for years to help her get over her feigned illness that was her fault in the first place.
She must be laughing all the way to the bank!
Priceless!
st1halo
says...
3:38pm Fri 14 Dec 12
Got away with it? More like made a monkey out of the court system as per normal these days.
The "in mitigation" section of defenses should be limited to "whilst the crime occured" as far as I am concerned. That way any consequent hardship suffered is just a resulting part of the punishment and could be disregarded by the courts!
999medic
says...
4:45pm Fri 14 Dec 12
housewife
says...
4:46pm Fri 14 Dec 12
.
I wonder how much she paid the doctor to tell lies about her?
Torchie1
says...
5:02pm Fri 14 Dec 12
Linesman wrote:Are you referring to the Minister who has twice been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Parliamentary Public accounts Committee which is chaired by Labour MP Margaret Hodge who has family members currently being investigated for tax avoidance?
hulla baloo wrote:Maybe, but not as an MP.
What a whitewash. What are the odds on a miraculous recovery and working again soon.
At least this abuse came to light, and the government did not attempt to supress it, like the government minister who is now under investigation.
Subject48
says...
5:39pm Fri 14 Dec 12
No prison, no confiscation of property. Nothing.
Of course the law has to be observed for it is made by the likes of her, precisely to protect people like her.
Anyone who still thinks otherwise has been well and truly duped by this so called government.
steal a mars bar, you go to prison. Steal millions and they will give you a pat on the back.
Big Mac
says...
5:52pm Fri 14 Dec 12
We should all feel truly sorry for the poor old dear and start a charity in her name; how about 'MUGS'...
Moran Used Greed Successfully
bazzeroz
says...
7:17pm Fri 14 Dec 12
SPIKEISLANDTRADER wrote:..............like her other parliamentary friends that got away with fiddling US!!
Throw a LOONY and you will get away with murder , panic attacks my ARSE , she was panicking about a sentence LOCKED UP with other crooks
RonnieSoak
says...
8:13pm Fri 14 Dec 12
999medic wrote:If you're a medic mate, I sincerely hope you don't write your case notes like that ... I'd hate to see anyone die because you didn't convey vital information in a clear manner.
Two years supervision, if that had been an ordinary member of the public, it would of two prison. Disgraceful she should sent to prison.
.
I do not understand what you mean in your comment ... what does "it would of two prison" mean? And "Disgraceful she should sent to prison" - do you mean it would be disgraceful if she should be sent to prison? Or do you mean that it's disgraceful, and she should be sent to prison?
.
Sorry to be a bit anal here, but we've just seen an (alleged) murderer get off because of bad spelling - http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/l
aw-and-order/9739520
/Spelling-mistake-me
ant-officers-missed-
opportunity-to-save-
murdered-woman.html, so please get it right, or at least close-to, so everyone can understand the information you're trying to get over.
.
Thanks. Rant over.
Pikey-Biker
says...
2:34am Tue 8 Jan 13
Pikey-Biker
says...
2:35am Tue 8 Jan 13
userds5050 says...
11:31am Fri 14 Dec 12