Lisa McIntyre, 41, care home manageress, stole more than £20,000 from three vulnerable residents. Judge orders her to repay £1.

My thanks to M who occasionally sends me clippings from the Mail on Sunday. The 21 February edition contained a piece about the nature and scandalous extent of the theft of possessions of residents in care homes by ‘carers’. The following caught my eye:

A care home manager walked free from court after stealing more than £20,000 from three vulnerable residents – and had to pay back only £1.

Lisa McIntyre, 41, siphoned off the money by using residents’ online bank accounts and used it to pay for a holiday to America and gambling sprees.

She pleaded guilty at Derby Crown Court in 2014 to three counts of fraud and was handed a nine-month sentence, suspended for two years. She had stolen the money from vulnerable residents at Annefield House, in Littleover, a care home which looks after elderly people as well as those with mental health issues.

But a judge ordered her to pay back only £1 as she was in debt and had no assets.

The case appears not to have made it into the national press at the time, but an article appeared in the Derby Telegraphhere. Excerpts:

The judge added: “The money was stolen in desperation rather than in sheer greed for high living. It is rare for someone to walk into a police station and volunteer their crime, which you did. [After she’d been questioned by one of the care home’s directors.] Despite the meanness of this crime, you still had a moral conscience.” [Rubbish. She was bowing to the inevitable, in a bid to be treated more leniently.]

Daniel Oscroft, mitigating, said: “She is extremely sorry for what she has done. The guilt has weighed on her very heavily. She had never been in trouble before. A gambling addiction took a grip of her. She had no idea when she reported it how much she had taken. Her mind has been warped by the addiction.”

It’s clear that Lisa McIntyre is a fine upstanding citizen, who bears no responsibility whatsoever for what happened, due to the mind warping, and all.

Why does the CPS not spare the long-suffering taxpayer the cost of such pointless trials, and publish a document outlining the crimes and circumstances where women won’t be punished even if found guilty, so there need not be a trial? They could start with paternity fraud, of course, a crime the Crown never prosecutes women for – despite knowing for many years of 500+ cases a year of paternity fraud through the CSA alone, where men demand (and have to pay for) paternity tests to prove they’re not the fathers of individual children.

I’m inclined to agree with one of the commenters in this case:

The debt should live with her until every single penny is paid back (including interest) – and if that means she lives in poverty for the rest of her days, then so be it……

The ‘punishment’ she received was 300 hours unpaid work. We’re never told what the ‘work’ is in such cases, but we can be sure it was light work in pleasant surroundings. Two commenters wrote this:

Disgusting! She pays back £1, does 300 hours to cancel the debt – at circa £70 per hour and the victims get…?

300 hrs for £20,000? Tax free. Work that out for a hourly rate. Around £60 ish per hour . What a bargain! Where do I sign?

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • In cases such as this we should be concentrating on civil restitution rather than criminal prosecution which means not prejudicing the offender’s earning capacity. The full amount due and owing should be registered as a County Court judgment, carrying interest, and enforcement against assets and earnings should be automatic. Debts of this type should also, like student loans, survive a bankruptcy order so that route out isn’t available either.

    • William Gruff

      Surely the object in cases such as this is to ‘prejudice the offender’s earning capacity’. Who can be expected to employ such a dishonest woman in any position of trust?

  • William Gruff

    Why does the CPS not spare the long-suffering taxpayer the cost of such pointless trials, and publish a document outlining the crimes and circumstances where women won’t be punished even if found guilty, so there need not be a trial?

    Then we’d all see that there are now very few crimes for which a woman will be punished and none where she will be punished as severely as a man guilty of the same crime.