Woman went on online spending spree using vulnerable brother’s card

Defendant Helen Mary Bradbury was told that it was “a breach of trust” and that she richly deserved to go to prison.

But she was vulnerable herself, Mold Crown Court was told. Bradbury, who worked in a charity shop as a volunteer, remained living at the family home with her victim, her parents and her husband.

The 37-year-old defendant, of Ashes Farm, Breaden Heath near Whitchurch, admitted stealing £6,561 from her brother Robert Holland between September 2016 and September 2018.

She received an eight-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months, was placed on 20 days’ rehabilitation and ordered to carry out 200 hours’ unpaid work. No compensation was ordered because she had no means.

Judge Rhys Rowlands said that the defendant, who had no previous convictions, had deliberately targeted a vulnerable victim. But he had to take into account her personal circumstances and the fact that she continued to live with the victim and the family.

“Your parents and brother are in an invidious position,” the judge said.

“If I sent you to prison today I have absolutely no doubt that your brother would blame himself for that situation."

Looking at the matter in the round, he said he was persuaded that the sentence could be suspended.

Trust

The judge said that it may have been different if there had been a victim impact statement showing a profound level of harm.

But the court heard that the victim had not been in a position to make a victim impact statement.

What made her behaviour behaviour particularly mean was that she had repeatedly taken money from her brother’s account when he was vulnerable, the judge told her.

He had mild learning disabilities and lived under the same roof as her.

She had been trusted to look after the card but withdrew money for herself.

She “cynically repaid that trust” by using the money for her own purposes - paying for items online that she would otherwise not be able to afford.

Prosecuting barrister Jemma Gordon told the court a member of social services staff expressed concern about the account, police were informed and it was established that there were a number of withdrawals that he knew nothing about.

Interviewed in May, she immediately admitted what she had done.

She said that she had previously helped her brother purchase items on line but then used his details to buy things for herself without his knowledge or permission.

Complex

Defending barrister Paul Smith said that his client had no income at all and was reliant on her husband who worked at an ink factory.

“I asked the defendant what she did for money herself and it is through the assistance of her mother and husband,” he explained.

They were very unusual circumstances where the defendant had some learning difficulties herself and they all lived under the same roof.

She had been to mainstream education but taken out of class for reading and writing and she also had additional education to learn how to go shopping and how to use money.

The defendant had always lived at home, had been married eight years and she and her husband lived between her family home and his.

She did voluntary work at a charity shop in Shrewsbury.

Mr Smith said: “She feels very guilty about all this. But the family have simply got on with it as they have always done. It is a complex and unusual case.”

The bank card is now managed by social services.

He said the opportunity was no longer there.

“She is chastened by what has happened,” Mr Smith said.