Wealthy father fails in appeal to walk free after failing to pay child support

You're shameless: Wealthy dad fails in appeal to dodge jail after not paying child support

You're shameless: Wealthy dad fails in appeal to dodge jail after not paying child support

First published in News

A DAD who dodged paying a penny of child support while £1.3million passed through his bank account has failed to convince top judges he should be freed from prison – to care for his kids.

Stephen David England, 32, failed to pay £30,000 of maintenance for his three impoverished children, while buying Rolex watches, driving a Bentley and having his house extended “so his snooker table could be better accommodated”.

England told the Child Support Agency he was earning between nothing and £18-a-week, despite enjoying the lifestyle of an affluent businessman, while his children, aged eight, ten and 11, endured deprived circumstances.

The cheat, of Barnstaple Road, Southend, who enjoyed lavish golfing holidays, was jailed for 12 months by Judge Ian Graham at Basildon Crown Court in January, after he was found guilty of two counts of fraud.

Now three senior judges at London’s Criminal Appeal Court have thrown out a bid by England to have his sentence suspended, rejecting “ironic” claims he should be freed as he is now the main carer of his children.

Judge Simon Bourne-Arton QC said England separated from the mother of his children in 2005 and she was deemed the children’s “parent of care”.

There was an argument over the maintenance England should pay, but when the CSA was called in to settle the row, England’s liability was assessed as “nil”.

That was based on England’s claims, made in December, 2010, that his income was just £18.46 a week.

Judge Bourne-Arton said.

“That was far from the truth. The reality was, he was running a pub and also had a motor trade business,”

A later probe showed England had spent £27,000 over the preceding six months, with £37,000 splashed out in personal expenditure from his account during the previous financial year.

Sentencing, Judge Graham had told England: “Your children were living in deprived circumstances.

Theywere missing out on many things because of your harsh attitude towards their mother and your refusal to pay what you should have been paying in maintenance to your own young children.

“Instead, what you were doing was living the life of an affluent businessman. You were buying Rolex watches; you had £1.3million moving through your bank account in the period of some three years.”

On appeal, his barrister, Jacqueline Carey, said England’s sentence should be suspended in light of the caring role he has for his children.

Lord Justice Treacy said the court saw the “irony” in England previously withholding child maintenance payments and now putting forward his children’s needs as a basis for his release.

Judge Bourne-Arton concluded: “We do not consider the sentence was in any way excessive and there are no grounds for a suspended sentence. The appeal is dismissed.”

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:10am Wed 9 Apr 14

supermadmax says...

Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.
Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist. supermadmax
  • Score: -45

9:19am Wed 9 Apr 14

InTheKnowOk says...

supermadmax wrote:
Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.
Jealous? ..Don't be ridiculous .. He gave him what he deserved ..
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.[/p][/quote]Jealous? ..Don't be ridiculous .. He gave him what he deserved .. InTheKnowOk
  • Score: 62

9:24am Wed 9 Apr 14

boo beckett says...

supermadmax wrote:
Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.
He got 12 months for fraud, not for avoiding paying money for his kids. The article is a bit misleading though.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.[/p][/quote]He got 12 months for fraud, not for avoiding paying money for his kids. The article is a bit misleading though. boo beckett
  • Score: 31

10:46am Wed 9 Apr 14

pembury53 says...

supermadmax wrote:
Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.
blokes always get a raw deal in such circumstances.......
.. i know women who have bled their ex dry, after moving a new millionaire boyfriend in (the next victim) goes on all the time, aided and abetted by the courts, who, as you point out, often let dangerous pyscho's off with little more than a telling off....
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.[/p][/quote]blokes always get a raw deal in such circumstances....... .. i know women who have bled their ex dry, after moving a new millionaire boyfriend in (the next victim) goes on all the time, aided and abetted by the courts, who, as you point out, often let dangerous pyscho's off with little more than a telling off.... pembury53
  • Score: -26

12:40pm Wed 9 Apr 14

kyprman says...

He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber.

I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.
He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber. I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time. kyprman
  • Score: 29

12:48pm Wed 9 Apr 14

pembury53 says...

kyprman wrote:
He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber. I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.
your better off without kids..... nothing but trouble
[quote][p][bold]kyprman[/bold] wrote: He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber. I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.[/p][/quote]your better off without kids..... nothing but trouble pembury53
  • Score: -7

1:43pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Kim Gandy says...

pembury53 wrote:
kyprman wrote:
He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber. I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.
your better off without kids..... nothing but trouble
I take it you have none.

This story isn't about kids. It's about a selfish, mean grasper who can not a) keep his trousers zipped and b) expects everybody else to pay.

Fact is he has kids and should be responsible for them. Should have been from the start. But obviously material things meant more to him.

One thing is certain: one day, he will be a sad old man.. because Karma can be very unforgiving.

The number of mean spirited people there are nowadays is shocking. I'd go to any lengths for my kids and have often gone without so they could have something.

That's what good parents do.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kyprman[/bold] wrote: He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber. I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.[/p][/quote]your better off without kids..... nothing but trouble[/p][/quote]I take it you have none. This story isn't about kids. It's about a selfish, mean grasper who can not a) keep his trousers zipped and b) expects everybody else to pay. Fact is he has kids and should be responsible for them. Should have been from the start. But obviously material things meant more to him. One thing is certain: one day, he will be a sad old man.. because Karma can be very unforgiving. The number of mean spirited people there are nowadays is shocking. I'd go to any lengths for my kids and have often gone without so they could have something. That's what good parents do. Kim Gandy
  • Score: 24

3:49pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
kyprman wrote:
He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber. I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.
your better off without kids..... nothing but trouble
I take it you have none.

This story isn't about kids. It's about a selfish, mean grasper who can not a) keep his trousers zipped and b) expects everybody else to pay.

Fact is he has kids and should be responsible for them. Should have been from the start. But obviously material things meant more to him.

One thing is certain: one day, he will be a sad old man.. because Karma can be very unforgiving.

The number of mean spirited people there are nowadays is shocking. I'd go to any lengths for my kids and have often gone without so they could have something.

That's what good parents do.
Of course the story isnt about a guy "who can not keep his trousers zipped'

What a stupid angle to take from the issue..

The man was obviously bitter against his ex-partner and allowed that bitterness to supercede his obligations to his children...Nor is it about expecting "everyone else to pay" again you come to conclusions with no pointer to that conclusion other than your own thinking..

There is also no certainty that one day he will be a 'sad old man' and the fact you believe in karma is a delicious thought...just what do you have coming back to you? LOL..

I suppose it can be said if you had learnt to keep your..err...inner prejudices a quieter you might of been a little better off financially...
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kyprman[/bold] wrote: He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber. I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.[/p][/quote]your better off without kids..... nothing but trouble[/p][/quote]I take it you have none. This story isn't about kids. It's about a selfish, mean grasper who can not a) keep his trousers zipped and b) expects everybody else to pay. Fact is he has kids and should be responsible for them. Should have been from the start. But obviously material things meant more to him. One thing is certain: one day, he will be a sad old man.. because Karma can be very unforgiving. The number of mean spirited people there are nowadays is shocking. I'd go to any lengths for my kids and have often gone without so they could have something. That's what good parents do.[/p][/quote]Of course the story isnt about a guy "who can not keep his trousers zipped' What a stupid angle to take from the issue.. The man was obviously bitter against his ex-partner and allowed that bitterness to supercede his obligations to his children...Nor is it about expecting "everyone else to pay" again you come to conclusions with no pointer to that conclusion other than your own thinking.. There is also no certainty that one day he will be a 'sad old man' and the fact you believe in karma is a delicious thought...just what do you have coming back to you? LOL.. I suppose it can be said if you had learnt to keep your..err...inner prejudices a quieter you might of been a little better off financially... ThisYear
  • Score: -5

6:41pm Wed 9 Apr 14

runwellian says...

boo beckett wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.
He got 12 months for fraud, not for avoiding paying money for his kids. The article is a bit misleading though.
WHY should tax payers have to keep his kids, 12 months was not long enough!

they should seize his assets to ensure his kids are kept by him.

Too many single women today have kids and expect the tax payer to keep them ... every father should pay for his kids, even if that means taking it out of hi benefits!

If fathers can't afford to keep their kids they shouldn't be so keen to jump in bed with any woman that passes by!
[quote][p][bold]boo beckett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.[/p][/quote]He got 12 months for fraud, not for avoiding paying money for his kids. The article is a bit misleading though.[/p][/quote]WHY should tax payers have to keep his kids, 12 months was not long enough! they should seize his assets to ensure his kids are kept by him. Too many single women today have kids and expect the tax payer to keep them ... every father should pay for his kids, even if that means taking it out of hi benefits! If fathers can't afford to keep their kids they shouldn't be so keen to jump in bed with any woman that passes by! runwellian
  • Score: 4

7:05pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ThisYear says...

runwellian wrote:
boo beckett wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.
He got 12 months for fraud, not for avoiding paying money for his kids. The article is a bit misleading though.
WHY should tax payers have to keep his kids, 12 months was not long enough!

they should seize his assets to ensure his kids are kept by him.

Too many single women today have kids and expect the tax payer to keep them ... every father should pay for his kids, even if that means taking it out of hi benefits!

If fathers can't afford to keep their kids they shouldn't be so keen to jump in bed with any woman that passes by!
There doesn't seem to be any mention of taxpayers keeping anyone...perhaps the paper doesn't have the full story..do you?

The rest of your post is rather sexist against men and derogatory to women, implying women are all..well.. of easy virtue.
[quote][p][bold]runwellian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boo beckett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.[/p][/quote]He got 12 months for fraud, not for avoiding paying money for his kids. The article is a bit misleading though.[/p][/quote]WHY should tax payers have to keep his kids, 12 months was not long enough! they should seize his assets to ensure his kids are kept by him. Too many single women today have kids and expect the tax payer to keep them ... every father should pay for his kids, even if that means taking it out of hi benefits! If fathers can't afford to keep their kids they shouldn't be so keen to jump in bed with any woman that passes by![/p][/quote]There doesn't seem to be any mention of taxpayers keeping anyone...perhaps the paper doesn't have the full story..do you? The rest of your post is rather sexist against men and derogatory to women, implying women are all..well.. of easy virtue. ThisYear
  • Score: -4

9:24pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Lesley says...

pembury53 wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.
blokes always get a raw deal in such circumstances.......

.. i know women who have bled their ex dry, after moving a new millionaire boyfriend in (the next victim) goes on all the time, aided and abetted by the courts, who, as you point out, often let dangerous pyscho's off with little more than a telling off....
This isn't about 'the ex', though. It's about his children.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.[/p][/quote]blokes always get a raw deal in such circumstances....... .. i know women who have bled their ex dry, after moving a new millionaire boyfriend in (the next victim) goes on all the time, aided and abetted by the courts, who, as you point out, often let dangerous pyscho's off with little more than a telling off....[/p][/quote]This isn't about 'the ex', though. It's about his children. Lesley
  • Score: 4

10:23pm Wed 9 Apr 14

bear in blue house says...

supermadmax wrote:
Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.
If he has lied and falsely declared information then this should make him a carer criminal. This is not a case of forgetting a slight detail this is intentional fraud to try and save paying tax and support his children.
Believe me the ex is not nor has ever tried to bleed him dry or move on to next victim. No one made him commit fraud yet it's his children that will miss out on seeing him these comments do make me chuckle
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Its sound like the judge was jealous, how can he justify giving him 12 months when careers criminals and violent offenders often get a slapped wrist.[/p][/quote]If he has lied and falsely declared information then this should make him a carer criminal. This is not a case of forgetting a slight detail this is intentional fraud to try and save paying tax and support his children. Believe me the ex is not nor has ever tried to bleed him dry or move on to next victim. No one made him commit fraud yet it's his children that will miss out on seeing him these comments do make me chuckle bear in blue house
  • Score: 7

10:27pm Wed 9 Apr 14

bear in blue house says...

kyprman wrote:
He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber.

I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.
It never mentions a new boyfriend don't know why the mum is being brought into this nothing to do with her that he lied and cheated
[quote][p][bold]kyprman[/bold] wrote: He was done for fraud. I don't care how much the mum's new boyfriend may, or may not earn. If you choose to have children you are legally and morally obliged to provide for them until they are either 18 or leave full time eduction. We live in a country where contraception is readily available, from condoms up to vesectomy, so there are absolutely no excuses for this knobber. I grew up in poverty becuase my dad decided to pull exactly the same stunt. It lead to me deciding to have no children. I did the sensible thing and always used contraception. This idiot did not, Tough, he can now do the time.[/p][/quote]It never mentions a new boyfriend don't know why the mum is being brought into this nothing to do with her that he lied and cheated bear in blue house
  • Score: 10

5:15am Thu 10 Apr 14

CHRISTMAS CAROL says...

Good
Good CHRISTMAS CAROL
  • Score: 2

12:50am Fri 11 Apr 14

happy 210 says...

i am a car dealer. Turnover is not income you have a lot of expenses so are lucky to earn a decent wage ,Also i had ex that all she wanted iwas to have kids and use it as a job,because i did not want this we broke up. Then she tried all ways to bleed me dry.I have oftern taken in other items as deposit for car purchase I once took a rollex.I think this guy has got a raw deal and think he should change his legal team.
i am a car dealer. Turnover is not income you have a lot of expenses so are lucky to earn a decent wage ,Also i had ex that all she wanted iwas to have kids and use it as a job,because i did not want this we broke up. Then she tried all ways to bleed me dry.I have oftern taken in other items as deposit for car purchase I once took a rollex.I think this guy has got a raw deal and think he should change his legal team. happy 210
  • Score: -5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree