Serial fraudster described by judges as 'incorrigibly dishonest' fails in bid to cut sentence
An 'incorrigibly dishonest' hair salon boss, who conned her way out of paying for £9,000-worth of styling products and rent, must swallow her tough jail term, top judges have ruled.
Tina Patel, aged 38, of Boulevard Walk, Walsall, repeatedly cheated suppliers and her landlady, paying with cheques she either knew she could not cover or which came from a closed account.
The serial fraudster was jailed for three-and-a-half years at Wolverhampton Crown Court in May, after she admitted five counts of fraud.
Three judges at London's Appeal Court have now rejected a sentence challenge by the deceitful salon boss, saying her sentence may be 'severe' but certainly not 'manifestly excessive'.
Judge Anthony Morris QC said Patel placed an order for £265 worth of products from supplier, Pro Impressions, in March, 2012, promising to pay by bank transfer.
However, she covered the sum using a cheque she knew would bounce. She later ordered a further £644-worth of items from the firm and repeated the same trick.
Patel made two orders from AKS Hair & Beauty Ltd, worth £448, again writing bouncing cheques.
She then placed a further order for products from the firm in excess of £2,000 while pretending to be someone else.
She also built up thousands of pounds of arrears with her landlady, Nicky Aulton, after writing worthless cheques.
Judge Morris said the total amount defrauded was between £8,000 and £9,000 with the offending taking place over a 15-month period.
Patel had four previous convictions for 35 offences, all involving fraud or dishonesty.
At the time that she committed four of the latest offences, she was on a licence from a previous sentence.
The judge who sentenced her described her as 'incorrigibly dishonest' and said it appeared that 'deceit was her second-nature'.
He said she had shown a 'total lack of remorse'.
Applying to appeal, her barrister, Tom Schofield, argued that she was under acute financial pressure at the time and her punishment was far too tough.
But Judge Morris, sitting with Lord Justice Pitchford and Mrs Justice Cox, ruled: 'In our judgment, this sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive.'
