The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Emad and Gehan Massoud leave to appeal their convictions for two insurance fraud offences. The couple appealed against their convictions only; their sentences were not under appeal.
A jury in Dublin Circuit Court convicted them on 4 February 2008. The offences concerned claims that Gehan Massoud had suffered cancer of the left breast and was entitled to serious illness payments. One conviction related to a €685,658.56 cheque from Scottish Provident Limited, delivered to Permanent TSB on the couple’s account. The other concerned a €45,338.25 electronic transfer from Lifetime Assurance Company Limited to their Bank of Ireland account.
Emad Massoud received a four-year prison sentence. Gehan Massoud received a three-year sentence, which was suspended.
The appeal challenged the trial judge’s directions to the jury about lies, comments about the condition of handwritten surgery notes, the validity of an order for medical records, and whether that order covered mammogram scans. Emad Massoud’s counsel also alleged that the judge’s closing charge was unfair and that the conduct of the charge had prevented him from raising objections at trial.
The appeal court said the jury had received the essential warning about lies. Emad Massoud had admitted using surgeon Mohamed Hilal’s name on insurance documents and said he did so because he had performed the operation himself and did not want colleagues to know. The court considered this an explanation that, if true, gave a non-criminal motive for the lie in the context of the charges. It dismissed the challenge to the jury direction.
The court also rejected the challenges to the medical-records order. It accepted evidence that the order had been made on 24 October 2003 and that the date printed on it as 25 October resulted from a clerical error. The records were produced on 30 October, within the order’s seven-day period. The court found the order covered mammogram scans or results and said the first applicant could not rely on alleged violations of the second applicant’s rights.
On the allegation of an unfair charge, the appeal court noted that no complaint of unfairness had been made to the trial judge. It found no support in the transcript for counsel’s claim that he had been unable to make a requisition, and said the judge’s comments about the notes and a photograph did not make the trial unfair.
The court dismissed the appeal grounds and refused leave to appeal.