R v Toloui and another 2025
Simon Toloui (T1) is the father and Rebecca Toloui (T2) is the stepmother of Andre Toloui (T3), who has severe and profound disabilities requiring a high degree of care.
T3's care needs were funded by Suffolk County Council following the family's move from London to Suffolk in 2014. By 2017, he was funded to receive 336 hours of care per week, representing 2:1 care, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Payments were made via direct payments to T2, who was responsible for paying the team of staff supporting T3.
The prosecution alleged that some of the money intended for T3's care was used by T1 and T2 to fund their own outgoings, including mortgage payments and utility bills for their house in Suffolk. Between July 2015 and February 2019, T2 submitted numerous invoices to the council for payments ranging from approximately £1,500 to £6,500.
The prosecution alleged that some of these invoices were false and did not represent genuine expenditure. The invoices were submitted on behalf of a consultancy called "RLHR", which was owned and run by T2, though she did not disclose this to the council.
T2 admitted to telling several lies, including providing false breakdowns of hours and mileage and falsely claiming that her brother and nephew had been caring for T3. T1 admitted discussing and agreeing to a letter containing false information about T3's care and account balances.
T1 and T2 claimed they had always provided all necessary care for T3 and understood from council social workers that they could use the funds in ways they thought would benefit him, either directly or indirectly.
On 6 December 2023, T1 and T2 were convicted in the Crown Court at Ipswich of one offence of fraud by abuse of position. On 23 February 2023, they were each sentenced to two years' imprisonment suspended for two years.
T1 and T2 appealed against conviction, arguing that the Recorder's conduct during the trial had rendered it unfair.
They argued that -
- The Recorder had entered the arena as a second prosecutor and advocate, demonstrating a view hostile to them or favouring the prosecution.
- While individual instances might not render the trial unfair, the cumulative effect of the Recorder's interventions did so.
- They complained that the Recorder told the prosecution to seek evidence from two social workers to fill a gap in the prosecution case.
- The Recorder improperly insisted on reading an entire email line by line in a manner that undermined T2's defence.
- The Recorder would stop witnesses making points favourable to the prosecution to emphasise and write them down.
- The Recorder asked challenging questions of T2 about false documents, which demonstrated a wish to show the defence case was not correct.
- The Recorder improperly stopped T1 from explaining the care given to T3 and questioned whether this evidence was relevant.
- The Recorder was disparaging towards T1 in front of the jury regarding his description of his defence statement as "vanilla".
- The Recorder selectively read out parts of T1's interview that helped the prosecution case but not parts containing his explanations.
Held
Appeals dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals against conviction. The Court concluded that neither the individual matters complained of nor their cumulative effect established unfairness in the trial or the appearance of unfairness.
The Court held that T1 and T2 had the opportunity to present their case, the evidence was properly summed up, and the jury was able to assess that evidence to determine guilt.
While some of the Recorder's actions during the trial were described as "unwise and unnecessary", they fell short of constituting unfairness or demonstrating that the Recorder had entered the arena as a second prosecutor.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
