Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 30th August 2008

RBS Ambassador, Luke Donald

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Canoe couple get 13 years for fraud that 'crushed' own sons



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 July 2008
JOHN and Anne Darwin tricked the police, insurance companies and even their own sons into believing he had died in a canoe accident. However, the unravelling of the couple's "determined, sustained and sophisticated" scam was complete last night after a judge sentenced them each to more than six years behind bars.
JOHN and Anne Darwin tricked the police, insurance companies and even their own sons into believing he had died in a canoe accident. However, the unravelling of the couple's "determined, sustained and sophisticated" scam was complete last night after a judge sentenced them each to more than six years behind bars.

She was convicted by a jury yesterday on six counts of fraud and nine of money laundering, while he had earlier admitted seven fraud charges and a passport offence.

Anne Darwin, 56, was jailed for six and a half years, while her husband got six years and three months.

The couple conned their family, including their sons Mark, 32, and Anthony, 29, and the authorities into believing Darwin, 57, had drowned in the North Sea in 2002 – only for him to turn up at a London police station last year.

Their £250,000 fraud was finally exposed when a photograph of them grinning together, taken in Panama four years after he disappeared, came to light.

Mr Justice Wilkie said the Darwins' "real victims" had been their sons. He told the couple: "Although the sums involved are not as high as some reported cases, the duration of the offending, its multi-faceted nature and, in particular, the grief inflicted over the years to those who, in truth, were the real victims, your own sons, whose lives you crushed, make this a case which merits a particularly severe sentence."

The Darwins, who owned several rental properties, hatched their elaborate plot as they hurtled towards bankruptcy. It involved him paddling out into the North Sea in March 2002 in his homemade canoe, within sight of the couple's home in Seaton Carew, near Hartlepool, then going into hiding while his wife claimed he was missing at sea.

She raised the alarm after secretly driving him to Durham railway station, and turned on the tears when she broke the news of their father's disappearance to her sons.

With her husband living rough in Cumbria, the grey-haired former doctor's receptionist began the process of declaring him dead, and conning insurers and pension funds out of the £250,000. Shortly afterwards, he came home – after repeatedly phoning her in tears – and for years lived in secret in a room in the bedsit the couple owned next door to the family home.

Under the assumed identity John Jones, taken from a local child who had died in infancy, John Darwin continued to run the couple's affairs and travelled around the world, planning a new life for the pair.

Last October, Mrs Darwin settled her affairs in the UK, having sold off the family's property portfolio, and emigrated to Panama, where she joined her husband.

But he called time on his exile, flew back to the UK and handed himself into a London police station, claiming he had suffered amnesia and could remember nothing since 2000. He was reunited with his sons in December; they told Teesside Crown Court they could not believe he was alive.

Mrs Darwin, still in Panama, was tracked down by a journalist, and pretended to be shocked at the back-from-the-dead miracle. But her story collapsed when a photograph was found on the internet showing the smiling couple posing in 2006 in a Panama estate agent's office.

Yesterday, the couple stood with their hands clasped in front of them, separated by a security guard, as the sentences were handed down. They avoided eye contact with each other as they stood in the dock.

The judge told them it had been a "determined, sustained and sophisticated fraud". He went on: "I accept you, John, were the driving force behind this deceit. You, Anne Darwin, perhaps initially unconvinced, played an instrumental rather than organising role.

"Nevertheless, you contributed to its success and played your part efficiently. In my judgment, you operated as a team, each contributing to the joint venture."

He said they would probably have got away with it had John Darwin not returned to Britain last year.

Their sons, who showed no emotion as their mother was found guilty, did not comment as they left court. But earlier, Mark spoke of his anger at her deception, saying: "I couldn't believe she knew he was alive all this time and I had been lied to for God knows how long."

Peter Makepeace, representing John Darwin, told the court: "He struggles to come to terms with what he has done to those boys.

"He continues to harbour the hope that a day will come when he can be reconciled with his sons. That may be as fantastical and unrealistic as the views he has held at times throughout his life."

But he said that hope would sustain Darwin through his jail term and "through what is presumably to be a very lonely existence when released".

The Darwins' sons Mark, left, and Anthony, were kept in the dark
The Darwins' sons Mark, left, and Anthony, were kept in the dark
Mr Makepeace added that Mr Darwin was taking medication for depression in jail, where he has been subject to abuse from fellow inmates because of his past career as a prison officer.

Anne Darwin had claimed her "domineering" husband forced her to go through with the plan. But her defence of "marital coercion" was undermined when the prosecution produced loving e-mails the couple had sent each other.

Detective Inspector Andy Greenwood, who led the investigation, did not think they had "got to the bottom of everything". He said: "I'm sure there will be more stories that come to light, but she has clearly been brought to task for the offences she committed."

He said the couple's sons had been treated in a "disgraceful" way.

When he started his investigation, he thought the sons must have known about their parents' plan.

"But the more we investigated it, the more we realised they did not know," he said. "They had gone through a particularly horrendous sequence of events."

He said the sons were "devastated", adding: "If they get over it, it will take some time and some assistance. I just hope they can go away from the court building today and move on with their lives."

There will be a compensation hearing at a later date to decide how the Darwins can pay back the £250,000 they defrauded.

PROFILES

Just an ordinary couple – spinning a web of deceit


JOHN Darwin was yesterday described by the trial judge as the "driving force" behind his and his wife's outrageous deceit.

But it was Anne Darwin who received the full wrath of the chief investigator outside Teesside Crown Court.

Detective Inspector Andy Greenwood, who led the inquiry, could not believe how she managed to maintain the deception in front of her grieving sons. "For her to say, 'I had to go along with it because John told me' – I just don't know how any mother could do that," he said.

It was not a victimless crime, he said. "You just had to stand in court and listen to the evidence of her sons or her friend, Irene Blakemore, to see that.

"She (Mrs Darwin] was out and out despicable and I don't have the time of day for her."

Mr Greenwood said that her desperate defence had been the last throw of the dice.

"To my mind, Anne Darwin has been a compulsive liar throughout this inquiry," he said.

Mr Justice Wilkie concluded that the pair had acted as a team. But the sentence handed down to Anne was three months longer than that imposed on her husband.

No explanation was given for the difference, but he will have taken some months off John Darwin's sentence for pleading guilty to the fraud charges.

The judge also decided that John's dramatic return to the UK from Panama had been driven by the belated realisation that he had betrayed his sons and that he wanted to reconcile with them.

Anne Stephenson, who grew up in Blackhall Colliery, a former pit village near Hartlepool, was a prim and proper convent girl when she met her future husband on the school bus aged 11 or 12. At the time, John attended St Francis Grammar School in Hartlepool, run by Xaverian Brothers.

It was not until her late teens that they began courting. Anne had a Sunday job at a sweet shop next door to the Darwin family home. When he first asked her out, she said no. "He asked me several times and again I declined," she told her trial. "Eventually, I agreed to go out with him. That was pretty much John's nature, he was a persistent man."

After leaving school with qualifications in shorthand and typing, Anne got her first secretarial job with a local printing firm. She was also a beauty queen, winning the Miss Blackhall Colliery title in the 1960s.

A former classmate recalls: "I have nothing nasty to say about her at all. She was quiet. She was a fairly good student, very attractive with lovely, jet-black hair. She was nicely spoken, very pleasant and well-mannered. We were all convent girls, so all very prim and proper."

John's most distinguishing feature was his short stature, which earned him the nickname Dinky. His canoeing antics first came to the notice of the media when he was 17. His mother, Jenny, a local councillor, complained about him getting covered in sewage while kayaking in the sea, and the story was covered in the local press.

Anne was 21 when John proposed and they married at St Joseph's Catholic Church in Blackhall Colliery on 22 December, 1973. Their marriage certificate described John as a teacher working at English Martyrs School in Consett and his bride as a secretary at Hartlepool-based printing firm William Barlow & Son. The newly-weds settled in her home village and they had two sons, Mark, now 32, and Anthony, 29.

The Darwins later lived in the Co Durham village Witton Gilbert before buying adjoining properties on the seafront at Seaton Carew, living in one and running the other as bedsits. By this time, Anne was a £17,000-a-year doctor's receptionist in Durham City. John, meanwhile, worked as a teacher and a prison officer, the latter job earning him £22,000. He told friends he was making good money from property dealing, allowing him to run a £48,000 Range Rover with a personalised number plate.

Fellow warders at Home House Prison, Teesside, described him as obsessed with money, introverted and "boring".

One former colleague said: "He always spoke about his property developing and the rental properties he used to have, but never said much more. He was more concerned about his activities outside work than he was with his actual job."

Among John's plans to make his fortune were snail breeding, making garden gnomes, running market stalls, writing computer games and dabbling on the stock market.

After John's faked death, Anne spoke of her "distress", marking the first anniversary of his disappearance by throwing flowers into the sea. She kept a single flower by her bed.

THE MISTAKES

Trail that led from Panama jungle to the dock in court


A TRAIL of mistakes ultimately led John and Anne Darwin from the lush jungles of Panama to Teesside Crown Court.

Their first error was a photograph taken of the couple in the Panama City office of their property adviser, Mario Vilar, who posted the image on his website a year and a half before John Darwin came "back from the dead".

Detectives were also able to sift through a series of e-mails sent by the couple to Mr Vilar. One, which was sent on 27 June, 2006, was signed off "regards John and Anne".

Receipts also proved that the couple bought a £38,000 penthouse in Panama City and a new Toyota 4x4, worth an estimated £20,000.

Two more photographs, taken last summer, showed John Darwin in the Escobal jungle.

He was photographed as the couple searched for a site to set up a tourist eco-park or open a canoe holiday centre.

The 500-acre property was bought for £200,000 by a company called Jaguar Properties. Anne Darwin signed herself as president.

THE THEORIES

The question remains: Why did he come back?


ONE question that remains unanswered is just why John Darwin returned to Britain after disappearing for nearly six years.

The theories include:

• The couple had a row over money and their relationship, and Darwin turned himself in to spite his wife.

• There was an affair. Anne Darwin had forgiven her husband once before when he had an affair, but she also found out that he had met an American woman over the internet.

• To come back and see his sons. Mrs Darwin maintained that her husband had returned to the UK to see their sons and pay back the money they owed.

• Planned changes to visa regulations would have stopped him from continuing to live in Panama on a tourist visa.

Hapless anti-heroes of a very British scam

The full article contains 2213 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Darien,

Panama 24/07/2008 00:28:11
People get less time for murder or attempted murder. This is two middle aged folks in debt and desperate to try something quite daft. Community service is all this 'crime' deserves. Its costing society a lot of cash to keep these folks locked up, and they are not even a danger to society, while headcases are being released early. And I've not even read this crappy article.
2

EPS,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 00:53:07
#1 If you haven’t read the article, then you are not competent to attribute to it the adjective that you do.

The article explains the judge’s reasons for the long sentences. The case is a long-lasting, multi-faceted £250,000 fraud which crushed the lives of their sons.

It is not as serious as murder, for which there is a mandatory life sentence.
3

bring them on,

24/07/2008 01:39:08
They have to serve time for this.

Stupid idea though, as you cannot keep up an act like theirs for ever.
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 01:50:53

The 'ONLY' reason for the long sentence's, was because the case was,.....'Press Hyped'!
5

Julian.,

edinburgh 24/07/2008 02:10:15
Darien,

Idiotic remark. Not only have you not read the article but you've got your facts wrong. Murder carries a minimum 15 years sentence.
6

Willie Macleod,

Wick 24/07/2008 02:28:57
The prison time is the nothing compared to what they put their family through.

How any Mother and Father could do what they did is beyond me.
7

W Smith,

Middle East 24/07/2008 03:41:13
#1 Damien
You are correct - murderers in Scotland have served less than 15 years and some of them went on to commit murder again after being released.

If Mrs Anne Darwin is a danger to the public then my real name is Uday Hussein.

#6 Willie Macleod
I don't disagree but a bitter divorce can be just as truamatic for young children and much worse things than this go on behind close doors within families all over the UK.


David Marshall and George Galloway should be in jail as the are in high positions of public trust.

BTW
The Daily Telegraph never accused Galloway of trading "barrels of oil".

They did accuse him of trading "oil vouchers".

Big difference.

8

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/07/2008 05:41:38
I'm relieved to know that I'm not the only one who thinks the sentences were over the top.
Ok what they did to their sons was terrible, but I get the impression the boys were more gutted by their auld man's reappearance than his disappearance.
Next week the judge will probably hand oot a 5 year sentence to someone who's gave someone else a battering.
9

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/07/2008 05:44:30
5 - a few years back a bunch of yobs from Balerno (including a copper's son) kicked a lad to death. They were released from Polmont within 18 months. Life is cheap.
10

calum,

24/07/2008 06:13:47
Millions of people have to struggle to make ends meet but do so within the law. Theirs was a deliberate scheme to defraud to enable them to live a better lifestyle for themselves, without a thought of te damage done to their sons who trusted their parents.
That Anne Darwim then resorted to the tears and hankies in Court along with the "nasty man made me do it" cry makes her part in it even worse.
Right verdict, right sentence.
11

Black Five,

edinburgh 24/07/2008 06:14:42
They got off lightly.6 Years for stealing a quarter of a million.I think there would be quite a few people who would do 6 years ,out in 4 , for 250 k .Good grief how long must you work for that.I`d have given them 20years.It sends out all the wrong signals.As for murder I`d sretch the culprits knecks.We`ve gone soft in this country hence the place is out of control.Knife crime has no deterant.
12

Black Five,

edinburgh 24/07/2008 06:18:33
Comment 9 .Yes I remember it well.These thugs would have got their knecks stretched if they had been of age in my book.If under 16 I`d have given them 25 years.The whole place is out of control.Time a government was elected who would sort this out.As for drug dealing I`d do the same as Singapore.Execution.Funny how they`ve no drug problem .
13

Regulator,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 07:06:36
What do you think would happen if the police investigated every incident where insurance companies refused to pay up on a technicality? They take good money from people and then when it's time to pay up, if they think they can get away with it, they'll refuse. If the police took an impatial line and investigated both sides then I would say fair dos. For some reason these multi-billion pound companies can rely on the police to go chasing after fraud against them, but Joe Public has to spend his own money in a civil action when the insurance company tries to avoid settling a claim. I can't see that either of the 2 pose a real risk to society, so can't really see the justification in spending more tax payers money in keeping them in prison. As for the pain and suffering caused to the off-spring there are worse cases that the police don't have the time or inclination to go after.
14

Douglas,

Bathgate 24/07/2008 07:25:25
Can sentences be added together for a better headline in journo world?

For sale: One home-made canoe, slightly used. Smells a bit like Seafield. No paddle.
15

Anglofile,

24/07/2008 07:39:05
They got what they deserved. The ironic thing is that there is no agreement between the UK and Panama for the money to be recovered. This means that the darwin's may still get hold of the money when they come out.
Our local paper is going to have nothing to report on now to keep it's front page busy. Unfortunately the darwin's have put our town on the map. You can still see people going out in canoes of the coast............copycats? haha
16

Rabhairt,

Australia 24/07/2008 08:08:08
A stupid thing to do, but as the saying goes "do the crime-do the time" they will probably be free in the minumum time anyway and then get paid a small fortune for their story and movie rights, I wonder what their sons think of them.
17

Ratman,

everywhere and nowhere baby 24/07/2008 08:43:40
The "devistation to their sons" would have been a lot worse if they had been told of the scheme. The sons would have then been guilty of collusion, or, in Yankee talk, accessory to fraud, after the fact.
18

Curious Yellow,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 09:32:32
#14 - absolutely correct. When will the media put an end to this stupid, stupid practice of totalling the sentences given to multiple accused and printing that in BIG HEADLINES to attract attention? They didn't get 13 years - they got 6 years and a bit each. The total of that is 6 years and a bit.

#5 - nonsense. There is NO minimum sentence for murder. The ONLY sentence a court can pass is 'life.' What that means is determined by a combination of the court and do-gooder brigade.
19

the reporter,

Godalming, Surrey. 24/07/2008 09:40:58
Time enough for both of them to wite their books, each giving their version and trying to blame each other, then their will be the exclusive newspaper serialisation deal to be followed by the film rights.
They wont do badly out of it all and they certainly wont get to serve the full sentences.
20

Vandala,

24/07/2008 10:00:00
#12. Personally speaking, I think there should be mandatory decapitation for anyone who spells the word "neck" with a k.
21

baroda,

Spain 24/07/2008 10:01:50
The sentence doesnt compare to the thug who kicked a stranger to death in dundee and was given 4 years in jail. I think what they did was wrong but why are the police so worried about the fraud from the insurance companies. I worked with insurance for over 30 years and if they could get out of paying claims they would. I hope when they get out they do sell there story as it would be interesting. It would certainly be more interesting than con man blairs or fatty prescott.
22

Calum Crubag,

Alba gu brath! 24/07/2008 10:02:26
Are these people New Labour donors?
23

Aesop,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 10:44:28
#21 baroda - you hit the nail on the head. Its the directors of insurance companies who con people into bogus policies then refuse to pay out on spurious technicalities who should be getting these jail sentences not two old people in debt.

Last year I bought £1000 new sofa - the first new sofa in my life - and took out a three year insurance policy against damage/stains. It got some wine stains on it then the swindling scumbags refused to pay for the clean up. Okay it was £180 down the Swanney on my part and probably daft for taking out the policy. But this bullsh*t goes on all the time.

Insurance companies are lying conniving parasites. The hurt caused to their sons apart, I wish the two old folk had got away with it.
24

Vandala,

24/07/2008 10:55:17
Bring back the birch for crooked insurance salesmen who refuse to clean up red wine stains on sofas.
25

AlecJ,

Aberdeen 24/07/2008 11:21:38
This headline is deliberately misleading, a common failing of most of the print press. The version in the paper copy of the Scotsman pointed out that they each received over six years - six years before they can hope to get back to Panama to resume their life in the sun. There seems to have grown up a tendency to add the years of punishment of individual convicts, an attempt to persuade the public that crime is being harshly punished. Example out of thin air: one gets 3 years, another gets 5, a third and fourth get 7 - headline criminals get 24 years in prison. These 7 years' duration are in fact concurrent. Sorry, you pressed one of my buttons here.
26

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 24/07/2008 11:50:09
That pair of numpties are just greedy gits.

They deserve time in jail but when they come out they will probably hatch another illegal scheme.

Such scum never change.
27

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 11:51:10
#1, > People get less time for murder or attempted murder. This is two middle aged folks in debt and desperate to try something quite daft. Community service is all this 'crime' deserves. It's costing society a lot of cash to keep these folks locked up, and they are not even a danger to society, while headcases are being released early.<

Quite right. These people should never have been imprisoned. A lot of fuss about nothing.
28

Curious Yellow,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 11:52:00
AlecJ my point exactly. Even better - they'll probably be out in arounfd three years.
29

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 24/07/2008 12:15:43
Is it normal to add the two jail sentences together and report it that way ie 13 years rather than 6 and a half each?
30

John south of Soutra,

24/07/2008 12:16:42
What is the differecne between this couple and all teh MPs who are fiddled their expenses, why is theft seen to be a bigger crime than rape, murder or serious assault, what about the cyclist who deliberately ran into a group of youths and knocked one to ground killing her he didn't even go to jail.
The fact is that our society sees thsi sort of crime as being worse than killing or injuring someone
31

TheSmith,

Kirkcaldy 24/07/2008 12:21:40
All that effort just to make some money?!?
32

JayDeeTee,

24/07/2008 12:44:08
This must be the first time in British legal history where a crime that was committed jointly by a man and a woman has resulted in the woman getting a longer sentence. Maybe equality is catching on.
33

Swordsman,

Dublin 24/07/2008 14:52:18
Up Sh*t creek without a paddle springs to mind...
34

Proud to have Scots blood,

Brooklyn, N.Y. 24/07/2008 14:57:29
Equality is catching on more than many know. Women are now responsible for the financial up-keep of their children & for alimony as well. They are stunned when the Judge tells them to anti up. They are told to stop making more babies & to get a job. They wanted equal rights on every level, well they got it! Some men got screwed for years, not any more. Ladies, think what you do.
35

Alberto.,

24/07/2008 16:57:57
£250,000.? Six years!

Some of our poliicians, if they are under suspicion down in the Westminster village and / or elsewhere, must be quaking in their boots at the outcome they may / should be facing for their 'nice little earners'
but feel they will all be cleared - possibly with a big bonus for working 'within the rules!!!!!'
36

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/07/2008 17:07:22
26 - "such scum never change"

er, they're both first offenders. Never mind, they committed a more heinous crime than say, drunk driving. manslaughter GBH....
37

"Scotty",

25/07/2008 01:29:59
They should have received 13 years EACH. The scars their poor sons and other family members have to live with for life.
.
And murderers most certainly do not get LIFE; Life should be the rest of their natural lives, not a few years and out for "good behavior". After all, the families of all murder victims have to truly serve life sentences.
38

Mop,

*********** 25/07/2008 11:40:24
I honestly think they should have got more.
Personally the one thing I do not understand is how on earth he was declared dead so quickly? I thought in this country you had to be missing/presumed for 7 years before you were declared dead.
I sincerely hope they are made to pay back the coastguard/lifeboat/emergency services the cost of the search when all along they both knew that it was a lie.What makes me sick regarding this is the lifeboat people volunteer to do this and they have plenty to do without lying,cheating scumbags having them all out on a wild goose chase,what if someone had genuinely been in desperate need while all these services were out looking for a non existent person?
Not to mention what they did to their own sons.They had 12 properties so they were not without means why the hell didnt they just sell them like normal people would have done or go to citizens advice.No this pair were scheming,greedy and conniving and they also strike me that they will fall in S$$$e and come up smelling of roses these types always do at great cost to us,the tax payer.
39

Scottie,

South Africa 30/07/2008 14:40:29
There could never be a gaol sentence long enough for what they did to their sons.

But 56 is hardly old! (Some post refers to 'old people')

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.