Incident at Chester Crown Court
Michael Moynihan, a 31-year-old construction worker from Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, was sentenced to 21 days in prison after being convicted of contempt of court for his disruptive conduct during a high-profile £105 million tax fraud trial at Chester Crown Court. The incident took place on March 27, 2023, during the trial of a major carousel VAT fraud case, one of the most significant fraud schemes in recent years, involving the manipulation of VAT claims and the sale of counterfeit goods. Moynihan’s behavior, which included mocking the jury and blatantly flouting the court’s authority, resulted in his arrest and subsequent imprisonment.
Background of the £105 Million Tax Fraud Trial
The case that Michael Moynihan attended was one of high complexity and importance. The trial centered on a fraud scheme involving Arif Patel, a businessman from Preston, Lancashire, and his accomplices. The gang attempted to steal an astonishing £97 million in VAT repayments by falsely claiming exports of textiles and mobile phones. In addition to these fraudulent claims, the gang was found to have bulk imported counterfeit clothing from China and Turkey, which had an estimated value of at least £50 million had they been legitimate goods. The proceeds from the illegal activities were funneled through offshore bank accounts to fund property acquisitions in the UK and overseas.
Moynihan’s Disruptive Behavior in the Courtroom
As the trial entered its final stages, Michael Moynihan, who had come to the court to attend a different trial, chose to sit in the public gallery during the closing phases of the fraud case. As the judge, Steven Everett, was delivering his summing up of the 14-week trial, Moynihan’s behavior took a disruptive turn. He was seen pointing at the jurors and laughing, which caught the attention of Judge Everett, who was clearly concerned about the effect of Moynihan’s actions on the jury. According to the judge, Michael Moynihan’s behavior was “threatening” to the jury, which could have potentially led to the abandonment of the entire trial. Two of the jurors, who had witnessed Moynihan laughing and pointing at them, appeared visibly shaken and avoided making eye contact as they filed in and out of the jury box.
Refusal to Comply with Court Orders
When Michael Moynihan was asked by court staff to leave the courtroom, he initially refused, and when requested to provide his name, he declined to do so. Judge Everett asked Moynihan to explain his actions, but he failed to do so. Instead, Moynihan arrogantly replied to the judge, saying, “You ought to be patient.” His defiance of the court’s authority and disregard for the legal process led to his arrest. He was later charged with contempt of court, a serious offense that undermines the functioning of the judicial system.
The Judge’s Response to Moynihan’s Behavior
Judge Everett described Michael Moynihan’s behavior as “rude, arrogant, and threatening” to the jury, emphasizing that such actions could not be tolerated in any courtroom. He noted that the trial had been ongoing for 14 weeks and had already cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds, so any disruption that risked derailing the trial was unacceptable. The judge further explained that the behavior exhibited by Moynihan could have led to the abandonment of the trial if jurors had felt intimidated or uncertain about the proceedings. He expressed his concern that the jury members might have questioned why they were being laughed at and pointed at, which could have compromised the fairness of the trial.
Court’s Message on Maintaining Order and Respect
Despite Michael Moynihan’s insistence that his actions were harmless, Judge Everett made it clear that the behavior was unacceptable, saying, “It’s important that everybody understands that the court is a place where people have to behave.” The judge emphasized that allowing such conduct to go unchecked would lead to chaos in the courtroom, and that the legal system could not function effectively without respect for its rules and authority.
Michael Moynihan’s refusal to leave the courtroom when ordered only exacerbated the situation, leading to his arrest. When asked why he refused to leave, Moynihan replied, “You ought to be more patient,” an answer that further demonstrated his disrespect for the court.
The Consequences: Moynihan’s Imprisonment
The judge’s decision to sentence Michael Moynihan to 21 days in prison was intended to send a strong message to the public about the importance of maintaining order and respect in the courtroom. “The court has to send out a message that if you behave like that, you go to prison,” Judge Everett declared.
He explained that while Moynihan’s behavior might not have been directly aimed at disrupting the trial, it was certainly threatening to the jurors and put the entire process at risk. Moynihan’s conduct was not just a personal affront to the judge, but an affront to the integrity of the legal system itself.
Moynihan’s Defense and Apology
Moynihan’s defense lawyer, Kay Driver, argued that he had been under the influence of painkillers at the time, which made him feel “too relaxed” and less aware of the consequences of his actions.
According to Driver, Michael Moynihan believed that he had recognized someone in the jury whom he had gone to school with and was simply pointing them out to a friend. However, Judge Everett was not swayed by this explanation, stressing that even if Moynihan had no ill intent, his actions were inappropriate and could have caused significant harm to the judicial process.
Michael Moynihan later apologized for his behavior, acknowledging that his actions were wrong and that he now understood how his conduct could have intimidated the jury. He expressed regret for disrupting the trial, especially given its complexity and the significant resources invested in it. His apology, however, did little to change the outcome, as the court upheld its decision to imprison him.
Impact on the Tax Fraud Trial and Convictions
Despite Michael Moynihan’s disruptive behavior, the £105 million fraud trial continued, and the jury ultimately convicted two key figures involved in the massive tax fraud operation. Among them was Arif Patel, who had fled to Dubai to evade prosecution. Patel was found guilty of false accounting, conspiracy to cheat the public revenue, and money laundering, convicted in absentia. His accomplice, Mohamed Jaffar Ali, was also found guilty on similar charges and sentenced for his role in the scheme.
This case underscores the critical need for order in the courtroom and the severe consequences of any attempt to undermine it. Courtrooms are sacred spaces where the law must be respected, and those who disrupt the legal process must face the full force of the law.
Though seemingly trivial at first, Moynihan’s actions posed a real threat to the integrity of a lengthy and expensive trial. The court’s decision to imprison him sends a clear message about the need for unwavering respect and decorum in the judicial system.
