Mum nails DNA faker who tried to help her child's dad dodge maintenance payments of up to £94k
Lab worker Robert Patel provided a saliva sample, forged a doctor's signature and used an official stamp.
2
2
He was asked to nobble the test by Sheldon Brown's aunt.
The HGV driver left Chelsea Millar three days after their son Louie was born in March 2022 and denied being his father.
A court heard he stood to save £94,000 in maintenance.
When the Child Maintenance Service told Chelsea the test supposedly taken by Brown was negative, she persuaded Brown's mother Katie to provide DNA at a private lab.
It proved Louie was her grandson.
The fake DNA swab matched Patel, 38, who had a conviction in 2017 for stealing £1,600 from a disabled person.
There was no evidence he received payment for the scam.
He and Brown, 26, both admitted conspiracy to defraud at Guildford crown court.
Brown, of Hampton, South West London, was jailed for 50 weeks and Patel, of Feltham, West London, got 33 weeks.
Chelsea, 31, said: 'I always knew who the father of my child was, but I was left questioning everything.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Jess Phillips: Nigel Farage would enable ‘modern day Jimmy Saviles'
Jess Phillips has joined criticism of Reform UK's pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act, suggesting such a move would empower 'modern-day Jimmy Saviles'. Ms Phillips, the Home Office minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, appeared to accuse Nigel Farage of being more concerned about 'clicks for his monetised social media accounts' than children's safety online. She backed her colleague Peter Kyle after his row with the Reform UK leader last week. The Technology Secretary said Mr Farage was putting himself on the side of 'extreme pornographers' and people like Savile by opposing the law. Under rules that came into effect on July 25 as part of the act, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children from accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. Mr Farage has said the legislation threatens freedom of speech and open debate. Writing in The Times, Ms Phillips said: 'Farage said it's the biggest threat to freedom of speech in our lifetimes. 'My colleague Peter Kyle said he was siding with modern-day Jimmy Saviles preying on children online.' She said she would like to speak to Mr Farage about 'one of those modern-day Saviles, Alexander McCartney'. McCartney, who posed as a teenage girl to befriend young females from across the globe on Snapchat and other platforms before blackmailing them, 'just needed a computer' to reach his targets, Ms Phillips wrote. Believed to be one of the world's most prolific online offenders, McCartney abused at least 70 children online and drove one girl to suicide. Ms Phillips said the Online Safety Act exists to try to provide a 'basic minimum of protection, and make it harder for paedophiles to prey on children at will'. She said police have told her that paedophile networks use 'normal websites where their parents assume they're safe' to coerce and blackmail young people. 'Perhaps Nigel Farage doesn't worry about that — there's no political advantage in it, and no clicks for his monetised social media accounts. But I do. 'I worry about what it means now and what it will mean when boys reared on a diet of ultraviolent online child abuse are adult men having children of their own. I can't ignore that, neither can Peter Kyle, and, most importantly, nor can millions of parents across the country. 'I defy Nigel Farage to tell me what any of that has to do with free speech. 'I defy him to meet even one parent who has lost a daughter to suicide because she was being blackmailed online and tell them that is just the price of civil liberties. Maybe he'd feel differently after that kind of meeting, or maybe he wouldn't care.' Her comments echo those of Mr Kyle, who said last week: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Mr Farage demanded an apology from the Technology Secretary, who refused to withdraw the remarks.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Palestine Action supporters planning to ‘flood' streets
Pro-Palestine protesters have made plans to deliberately flout the new proscription of Palestine Action by overwhelming the criminal justice system through a massive pressure campaign. The plot would call on thousands of demonstrators to flood towns and cities across the UK and go against the ban on Palestine Action by declaring their support for the organisation. Plans revealed by The Telegraph showed a co-ordinated effort coming from groups including Cage International and Defend Our Juries. At a meeting hosted by Cage International last week, activists called for people to join in an act of mass public disobedience. Speaking at the meeting was Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee who received an out-of-court settlement from the British government after a lawsuit alleging the government's complicity in alleged abuse and torture while in US custody. He said: 'I would urge everybody to join the action of the 9th of August. That is the first step to take for the resistance. Those from the Muslim community, we have a massive presence in this city, and we must engage our leaders, our imams, our habibs, those in positions of power, to join, there is strength in numbers, stop being a coward, cowards never win battles.' The event has been described by Shezana Hafiz, a representative of Cage International, as an opportunity to 'discuss crucial matters that pertain to our movement — a movement to liberate Palestine, to crush Zionism and see an end to the genocide in Gaza.' Angie Zelter, from Defend Our Juries, also urged people to join. 'Together we can and must face down the rising tide of fascism in Britain'. • Pro-Palestinian groups announce 'siege' on Labour MPs A document written by Defend Our Juries, which was seen by The Telegraph, read: 'It would be practically and politically difficult for the state to respond to an action on this scale … an action on this scale could be enough for the ban to be lifted.' Activists were told to bring their own placard to write: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' Graham Wettone, a retired Metropolitan Police officer, warned it would create problems for forces across the country. He said: 'There are a limited number of custody cell spaces available in London … Simply put, they will not be able to arrest and process everyone.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
City watchdog ‘ignored my warning about Ponzi scheme'
The City regulator is facing criticism for allegedly 'ignoring' a warning about an investment group that later collapsed owing thousands of people more than £200 million. The Financial Conduct Authority received a report that 79th Group was an alleged Ponzi scheme in November, more than four months before the failure of the business, which is now being investigated by City of London police. In an apparent echo of the regulator's widely criticised handling of the £237 million collapse of London Capital & Finance's 'mini bonds' investment scam, the FCA told a complainant that 79th Group 'lies outside our remit' as it 'does not regulate mini bonds'. • Former HMRC official was adviser to collapsed investment firm Mini bonds are a high-risk investment issued by a firm in exchange for a fixed rate of interest over a set period. Insolvency practitioners have estimated that 79th Group owes more than £200 million to about 3,700 people based in the UK and overseas. Some investors have life savings at risk, and the matter has been raised in parliament. A member of the public had warned the FCA — including Nikhil Rathi, its chief executive — in November. Communications then continued in December and January. 79th Group continued to trade until April when it began to fall into insolvency. • City regulator getting 'more whistleblowing reports than ever' The group continued to trade until April when it began to fall into insolvency. City of London police have said they are investigating a 'suspected widespread fraud' at 79th Group, which sold 'loan notes' to investors offering high returns via third-party brokers. It told investors that the loans were secured against valuable property developments including a £250 million holiday park in north Wales. The company has denied any wrongdoing. In February, police said four people had been arrested and that 'a large amount of cash, luxury watches and jewellery were found during searches of properties, all of which were seized'. The people arrested have been released on bail and inquiries are continuing. There have been no charges. 79th Group's board advisers included a former senior HM Revenue & Customs official, who has not been arrested. Almost all financial firms in the UK must be authorised or registered by the FCA; 79th Group was not registered or authorised. The regulator declined to answer questions about the case, including when it first received a warning about the firm. A spokesman said: 'We have sympathy with those who've lost money. As there is an ongoing police investigation we are limited in what we can say.' He said the regulator is engaging with City of London police, but noted: 'The firm is not authorised by us and the sale of these products was not regulated by us.' The FCA faced fierce criticism over its handling of the London Capital & Finance case, which was called the 'largest Ponzi scheme in British history' by a High Court judge last year. • NatWest faces questions over links to collapsed 79th Group Dame Elizabeth Gloster, a retired Court of Appeal judge, who issued an excoriating report into the LCF affair in 2020, concluded that the regulator's 'failure to scrutinise LCF's business and to intervene earlier cannot be excused or mitigated on the basis that LCF's bond business was [unregulated]'. LCF was FCA-authorised, but its mini-bond business was unregulated. The FCA has powers to tackle unregulated collective investment schemes like 79th Group. Last week, the regulator began High Court proceedings against a business called Concept Capital Group for allegedly running an unauthorised investment scheme that gathered £23 million in consumer investments in modular housing. Sir John Whittingdale, a veteran Conservative MP and former minister, has raised 79th Group's failure in parliament, as has Anna Sabine, a Lib Dem MP. Whittingdale asked the chancellor in July what 'assessment she has made of the adequacy of Financial Conduct Authority support for victims'. He also wrote to the FCA last month on behalf of a constituent, a retired NHS health worker who lives in Essex and invested 'life savings' of £75,000 with 79th Group. He told the regulator that he was advised that many of the investors were 'unsophisticated, retired first-time investors, some put their savings into a well-planned scam'. He said at least 16 MPs have so far been asked to help. Brian Corr, the FCA's head of market intervention in retail banking, replied: 'We are unable to provide details regarding further engagement or action we have taken with any of the firms mentioned by your constituent, due to legal and policy reasons.' NatWest, the main receiving bank for 79th Group funds, and other lenders are facing scrutiny over 79th Group payments. NatWest has declined to comment on the case. • Watchdog to ban borrowing to invest in cryptocurrencies Administrators from Grant Thornton have told 79th Group investors that 'we believe this is a Ponzi', the term for a fraudulent investment set up in which early investors are paid with money from later investors rather than legitimate business activities. The person who warned the FCA about the group told The Times: 'The FCA completely ignored the substance of my concerns last year. Sadly, my concerns have proved well-placed and enormous amounts of investors' money is at risk following 79th Group's collapse. 'If the FCA is warned about a major Ponzi scheme and does nothing, is it a lapse in judgment or evidence of a callous attitude towards protecting the public?'
