A MAN jailed for stealing almost £400,000 from his wife’s family business has failed in a bid to overturn his convictions.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Benjamin Mitton, ruling that the jury’s verdicts were safe – despite the case being based on circumstantial evidence.
The 48-year-old was convicted earlier this year of one count of larceny as a servant and two counts of transferring proceeds of crime after a jury found that he had taken cash from Hunt Bros Ltd, a scrap metal business run by his in-laws, and paid it into his own bank accounts. He was later jailed for eight years.
In a judgment delivered on 27 November, the court rejected arguments that there was no reliable proof that money had been stolen, that the jury had been misdirected on the law, or encouraged to draw adverse conclusions from Mitton’s silence.
Mitton worked for the scrap metal firm between 2015 and 2019 and was responsible for administration, including aspects of the company’s accounts.
The business relied heavily on cash and was described by the sentencing court as a “small, tight-knit family business based on trust”.
During the four-and-a-half years Mitton was employed there, he paid around £397,000 in cash into his personal bank accounts.
In the two years before joining the company, he had paid in just £652, and after leaving that figure dropped again to £262.
Over the same period, the company’s financial performance declined sharply.
There was no direct evidence of Mitton physically taking cash, and the case against him was built entirely on circumstantial evidence.
However, the appeal judges said the “central issue” was whether the jury could be sure that appropriation had taken place – and concluded that it could.
The court pointed to the scale of the unexplained deposits, the absence of any other legitimate income, expert evidence of accounting irregularities, admissions that Mitton had lied about his income when opening bank accounts, and evidence from company director James Hunt that money was missing.
The defence argued that Hunt Bros’ informal bookkeeping made it impossible to prove any loss. The court rejected that submission, saying: “Otherwise it would never be possible to prove larceny from an employer who was disorganised. We do not understand that to be the law.”
Mitton’s lawyers also complained that the jury had not been properly directed on the need to be sure cash was taken from the business, and that Mitton’s decision not to give evidence may have been held against him.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the directions were clear, fair and repeatedly emphasised that Mitton was under no obligation to testify and that his silence “does nothing to establish his guilt”.
At sentencing, the Royal Court heard that Mitton’s offending had a “devastating impact” on his wife’s family.
Crown Advocate Mike Preston said the defendant had “abused” the trust placed in him, while enjoying “lavish holidays” and an expensive lifestyle.
In dismissing Mitton’s appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded there had been no miscarriage of justice.
“The verdict was not unreasonable,” the judgment said. “The appeal falls to be dismissed.”
