A former solicitor jailed for four years for stealing client money to chase what he believed was a 'lottery win' was not unfairly treated, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Mrs Justice Stacey said the court had been ‘merciful’ in not handing Hugh Lansdell a longer sentence after he took £2m from clients over two years through 72 separate transactions.

Lansdell, described as previously a ‘pillar of the church and the local community’, had applied for leave to appeal his sentence on the basis that the court had failed to take sufficient account of his personal mitigation and on the basis of remarks at the plea hearing which he said were inconsistent with the final outcome.

But the judge said in reality, the offending could have led only to an immediate and length custodial sentence, and that ‘if anything, this was a lenient sentence’.

The court heard that Lansdell had been the senior partner of East Anglia firm Hansells Solicitors which was father’s firm before him and where he had worked for 30 years.

But he had fallen for an advance fee fraud scam where he believed he had won a Spanish lottery and needed to make payments to release winning of £8m. Once funds from his own and his wife’s account were exhausted, he began to draw on client accounts.

Lansdell repeatedly lied to his staff, his partners and his clients and caused serious financial and reputational damage to the firm.

The 74-year-old pleaded guilty to fraud by abuse of position four days before his trial. Sitting at Norwich Crown Court, Recorder Hardy KC ordered a pre-sentence report, identifying available mitigation and expressing some sympathy.

But the appeal judge stressed that the recorder had made no promises and said that all options were open. ‘If [Lansdell] took false hope or comfort from the thought of all options being open, he was wrong to do so,’ said the judge. ‘The fault did not lie with the recorder but the applicant took from his words what he wanted to hear.’

Lansdell did indeed have ‘considerable’ mitigation: he had no previous convictions and had lost his reputation, his marriage, his home, his job, his wealth and his status as a solicitor. He had intended to use the lottery winnings mainly for good causes.

The judge said the recorder took careful note of all this but had been ‘merciful’ in how he approached sentencing. There was no upward adjustment to reflect the scale of offending and Lansdell was given a 20% discount for a guilty plea, despite it being made only four days before trial.

The application for leave to appeal was refused.

 

This article is now closed for comment.