A man from Wirral has narrowly avoided an immediate prison sentence after a court heard he deceived his girlfriend out of more than £15,000, falsely claiming his mother had died and that he needed funds for her funeral. The case, which was heard at Liverpool Crown Court, underlines the profound emotional and financial impact of such fraud on victims.
Andrew New, 36, orchestrated the fraud during a brief relationship with Sarah Haslam between April and June 2022. Prosecutors detailed how New repeatedly asked Haslam to transfer money to various accounts, including those of a friend and an individual he called “Uncle Joe”, supplying a series of fabricated reasons. Amongst the most shocking of these was his assertion that he needed help covering funeral costs for his mother, who, in reality, remained alive and well.
In total, Ms Haslam transferred £15,734.65 to New over the course of just a few months, believing she was assisting a partner during a time of crisis. The lies did not stop at funeral expenses—New also convinced her to provide money for Champions League final tickets with the empty assurance that he would repay her. The court was told that she has yet to recover any of the funds.
The emotional toll on Ms Haslam has been severe. Reading from her witness statement, she shared how the deception left her feeling broken and traumatised. “I gave this person everything I had. In return, I was controlled and coerced until they broke me,” she declared, describing how she continues to live with the pain and shame of the incident three years on. Financially, the consequences continue to reverberate; Haslam is still working to repay the money taken, which has delayed her hopes of buying her own home.
New’s fraudulent activity is not his first brush with the law. The court learned he has previous convictions, including a similar fraud committed against a woman he met via a dating website in 2019. Since the clumsy deception was unmasked in 2022, New has moved to Scotland and taken up residence at a rehabilitation centre in Motherwell. According to his defence barrister, Paul Becker, New has been striving to turn his life around, maintaining sobriety, working in a supportive environment, and acting as a mentor to others recovering from addiction.
Becker emphasised the unusual length of time it had taken for the case to progress through the courts—almost three years since the offence—which, he argued, showed that New had not reoffended and had made substantive efforts to rebuild his life.
Presiding judge Gary Woodhall ultimately accepted this line of mitigation, stating, “On many occasions you asked her to make transfers, saying that you owed others money or you were paying for items such as petrol, funeral arrangements for your mother, although she was alive and well, and football tickets… You had no intention of [repaying].” The judge acknowledged the significant distress caused to the victim, noting how Haslam is still burdened by the aftermath of the fraud years later, both emotionally and financially.
Despite branding the case one that would “ordinarily warrant an immediate custodial sentence,” Judge Woodhall was persuaded by the exceptional delay and the defendant’s progress since the offence. He imposed a 21-month prison sentence, suspended for 20 months, alongside 180 hours of unpaid work, participation in a rehabilitation programme, and a 12-month residency condition at his current facility.
He concluded with a stark warning: “You have come very close to going to prison today. If all the promises suggested on your behalf are not made out and you return to offending, this sentence will be activated.”
Cases such as this highlight not only the vulnerability of individuals to manipulation by those they trust, but also the complexities faced by courts in balancing punishment, victim impact, and the prospects of rehabilitation. For both victim and offender, the effects will be lasting, serving as a sobering reminder of the consequences of betrayal and deceit.