NI High Court: Suspended sentence for woman who withdrew funds from undisclosed pension while under restraint order

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] NIKB 11
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Scoffield

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David Scoffield considered that the withdrawal and use of the pension funds was the most serious breach, “in that case a breach of the non-disposition prohibition, since, if undetected and unremedied, that would have wholly undermined the purpose of the restraint and confiscation regime”.

Andrew Brownlie appeared for the applicant instructed by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, and Des Fahy KC and Joseph McCann appeared for the respondent instructed by Patrick Fahy & Co, Solicitors.

Background

On 9 June 2016, a restraint order was made against the respondent on the basis that a criminal investigation had been initiated against the respondent and that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that she had benefitted from her criminal conduct.

The order restrained the respondent from removing any of her assets within the jurisdiction from Northern Ireland, from dealing with or diminishing the value of her assets, and required the respondent to disclose to the DPP details of all of her assets and of all persons, including financial institutions, known to be affected by the order, details of all accounts held by her and details of all trusts of which she was a beneficiary.

An affidavit was sworn by the respondent in purported compliance with the order thereafter.

On 23 October 2019, the respondent pleaded guilty to nine counts of dishonestly abusing her position in violation of the Fraud Act 2006, sixteen counts of converting criminal property contrary to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and one count of possessing articles to commit fraud contrary to the 2006 Act. The context of the offences involved the respondent defrauding her employer of significant amounts of money.

In November 2021, the respondent was sentenced to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. 

Confiscation proceedings followed in the Crown Court. On 28 November 2022, His Honour Judge Sherrard found that the respondent lived a criminal lifestyle and had benefited from her conduct to the value of over £1.8m, calculating the available amount under the 2002 Act at approximately £673,000. 

The respondent was released from custody in March 2024, having served her sentence.

The respondent’s legal advisors subsequently indicated to the Crown Court that they intended to seek a variation of the restraint order on the basis that the amount actually available was insufficient to satisfy the confiscation order.

It then came to light that the respondent held a pension policy which had been worth £100,000 in her maiden name, from which she had made a number of withdrawals totalling around £45,000 throughout 2025 and which she had failed to disclose in her affidavit.

The DPP sought committal of the respondent to prison for contempt of court in relation to five breaches of the restraint order, which breaches were admitted by the respondent:

i) Failure to disclose the pension policy;
ii) Withdrawing funds from the pension;
iii) Opening a Virgin Money credit card account in July 2016 and failing to disclose same;
iv) Opening a Capital One credit card account in July 2016 and failing to disclose same; and
v) Opening a bank account with Natwest in April 2024, into which the withdrawals from the pension policy were paid and failing to disclose same.

The matter came before the High Court.

The High Court

Mr Justice Scoffield considered the respondent’s replying affidavit, which accepted inter alia that she did not disclose existence of the pension policy and stated that she had withdrawn around £45,000 from the pension fund to repay a loan from family members, to repay credit card debt and to pay for daily living expenses.

The court determined that in light of the evidence, it was satisfied that the respondent knowingly failed to comply with the terms of the restraint order and found the respondent in contempt of court.

Noting the parties’ agreement that the withdrawal of the pension funds was the headline offence, Mr Justice Scoffield was satisfied that the original non-disclosure of the funds was also a separate and serious breach.

As to aggravating factors, the court highlighted that the withdrawals from the pension were substantial and repeated and were made at a time when the respondent was “teeing up” an argument based on impecuniosity.

The court further highlighted that the Virgin Money credit card account was opened “a mere matter of weeks after the service of the restraint order upon her, in almost immediate defiance of the order” and that the Natwest account was opened, at least in part, to conceal payments from the pension policy.

As to mitigating factors, the court found it relevant that the respondent had disclosed the pension funds which were otherwise unlikely to have been discovered, that a family loan had replenished the sum which had been withdrawn, that the respondent had instructed the pension provider to pay over the remainder of the funds toward the discharge of the confiscation order without the need for further proceedings, and that the respondent had accepted the contempts alleged against her at an early stage.

Explaining that on an application to commit for civil contempt, the court could fine the contemnor or imprison her to a maximum of two years’ imprisonment pursuant to s.14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Mr Justice Scoffield considered the authorities advanced by the parties as to the appropriate sentence.

The judge found the custody threshold to have been “plainly met” in the respondent’s case, where elements of non-disclosure and dissipation of assets were involved.

In respect of the first and second counts, the court used four months’ imprisonment as a starting point and reduced same to three months’ imprisonment in light of the respondent’s early plea, to be served concurrently.

The court imposed a term of one month imprisonment on the remaining counts, also to be served concurrently.

Noting that in some cases, it has been recognised that suspension of the sentence for civil contempt is appropriate where there has been full disclosure and remedial action taken, Mr Justice Scoffield suspended the order of committal on condition that the respondent would not commit further financial crimes or crimes of dishonesty or money laundering, and would not commit a further breach of the restraint order during the two-year period of suspension.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court sentenced the respondent to prison for three months, suspended for two years on the stated conditions.

Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Julie McBrien [2026] NIKB 11