"Unreliable" evidence blasted as £2.7m fraud trial enters final stages

Wednesday 12 September 2018

Evidence against a CEO accused of dishonestly obtaining and losing nearly £3million from a group of elderly, vulnerable and financially inexperienced clients was blasted as “weak and unreliable” as his month-long Royal Court trial entered its final stages.

Yesterday marked the beginning of the end of the trial of former Lumiere Wealth head, Christopher Paul Byrne (50), who is charged with knowingly mis-selling the ‘high-risk’ Providence fund.

Taking the Commissioner and presiding Jurats through the case count-by-count in his summing up, Advocate Olaf Blakeley, defending, warned against accepting the evidence presented against Mr Byrne “at first blush”, insisting that it was “inherently weak and unreliable.”

“Foolish decisions” on the part of Mr Byrne were admitted, but Advocate Blakeley argued that these do not amount to the fraudulent and misleading actions he is charged with. 

Addressing Royal Court Commissioner Sir John Saunders, who sat with Jurats Charles Blampied and Robert Christensen, Advocate Blakeley added: “Mr Byrne is not guilty of any of the offences alleged… He has not been dishonest. Mr Byrne is a genuine, caring man who cared about his clients whom he wanted to see prosper rather than suffer.” 

Pictured: Royal Court Commissioner Sir John Saunders has presided over the month-long fraud trial which entered its final stages this week.

However, the Prosecution’s case is that Mr Byrne acted intentionally. Crown Advocate Simon Thomas claimed that Mr Byrne persuaded his clients – including an elderly French couple, a pensioner and a retired teacher – to invest in the Providence fund by concealing information as to the risks involved as well as his own vested interest in the fund.

It’s claimed that Mr Byrne failed to tell investors that Providence was a ‘high risk’ investment and was only suitable for experienced investors. 

However, Advocate Blakeley said: “The Prosecution would like you to accept that Mr Byrne is an individual that is happy to see people labour under misapprehensions”, but he insisted that Mr Byrne “genuinely believed in Providence” and is “devastated” by his clients’ losses. 

Continuing in his summing up, Advocate Blakeley said: “[Mr Byrne] never imagined for one moment that this would all come to pass. It is understandable that after this fund failing, that someone should be held to account, but this person is not Mr Byrne.”

Pictured: In his summing up, Defence Advocate Olaf Blakeley (left) attempted to take the Court through rebuttals of each part of the Prosecution case, presented by Crown Advocate Simon Thomas (right).

In his final words before the Commissioner summed up the facts of the trial, Advocate Blakeley reminded the Court of Mr Byrne’s “good character”, impressive career and his family “whom he loved” and wanted to support.

“Not only did Mr Byrne have an unblemished career history, but one that stood out. The suggestion that Mr Byrne would get involved in wrongdoing and put all of that at stake is absurd.”

The Royal Court Commissioner then directed the Jurats as to the law in this case, reminding them that they must be absolutely sure of Mr Byrne’s guilt in each count as considered individually in order to convict. Sir John then began summing up the facts of the case.

All that remains is for the Jurats to retire in order to reach a verdict.