A judge has urged the media to exercise restraint in reporting on a 'romance fraudster' who deployed her charisma and good looks to con victims who included a barrister.
Sitting at Swindon Crown Court, His Honour Judge Jason Taylor KC sentenced Gemma Kingsley, 50, to seven years and seven months in prison in relation to 13 offences. These included fraud by false representation, theft, using a false instrument with intent (a solicitor’s letter) and possession of an article for use in fraud.
Kingsley, of Beadnell, Northumberland, conned multiple men out of tens of thousands of pounds over four years. She falsely claimed she was due to receive a multi-million-pound inheritance to manipulate victims into funding her lifestyle. Some were left with significant debts.
In his sentencing remarks, the judge noted that he was not imposing a reporting restriction but making ‘an invitation’ for sensitivity. 'I would respectfully ask that those who choose to report this case do so with compassion,' he said. 'As is often the case in cases of this type, the victims suffer with acute embarrassment and self-blame. They needn’t. But they do. I have already been made aware of some insensitive intrusions into their private lives which has not only impacted these men but also their children. Even if not intended, that is regrettable.'
The judge added: 'Whilst I hope today brings closure, their suffering will only be compounded unless any further reporting is done with discretion. The story should be told. But it may be felt that it can properly be told by the victims being referred to by their initials only, as I have done. This is not a reporting restriction but simply an invitation for the same level of sensitivity that one might hope for if it was a journalist’s father or brother.'
Kingsley was described as ‘ruthless and totally lacking in empathy’ and did not show any 'regard to the trail of destruction being left behind in her wake'. She admitted to all 13 charges.
One man went ‘further into debt’ to meet Kingsley’s financial demands, including legal fees for the family court which she never paid.
A direct access barrister’s £12,000 bill remains outstanding. ‘The fraud on the barrister was sophisticated and involved significant planning,’ the judge told Kingsley. 'A lot of hurdles have to be overcome before direct access instructions are accepted and, in the absence of an instructing solicitor, there is more contact with a client. This wasn’t just a casual fraud that you stumbled into, as shown by the emails both before and after the case.'
Read more
