Andy Pilley, the former Fleetwood Town owner jailed for 13 years, has failed in a bid to have his conviction overturned because he had undiagnosed ADHD at the time of his trial.
The 55-year-old businessman was sentenced in 2023 over a multi-million pound fraud which a court ruled ‘duped’ firms into expensive energy contracts.
Pilley was forced to step away from the League Two club following what was described as the biggest ever prosecution by National Trading Standards, but Daily Mail Sport can reveal he has appeared at the High Court in London for the past two days in what was an ultimately unsuccessful appeal against his conviction.
Pilley watched proceedings via video link from prison. Had the appeal succeeded a retrial may have been ordered but he will now continue with his sentence.
After deliberating for around 10 minutes Lord Justice Edis, sitting with two fellow judges, dismissed the appeal – ruling that the conviction must stand. Representing Pilley, Adrian Darbyshire KC said that a diagnosis of ADHD was obtained when he was in prison.
He argued that failure to make allowances for the condition during the trial meant that the conviction was ‘unfair’ and that his client had made a poor impression on both judge and jury at Preston Crown Court.
Listing symptoms of the disorder, Mr Darbyshire added: ‘Inattention, poor time management, finding it hard to follow lengthy or complex material, reduced executive functions, hyperactivity, internal restlessness, feeling on edge, struggling to sit still, becoming more unsettled when forced to remain quiet. Those symptoms are capable of having an obvious impact on someone’s preparation as a defendant. They are key symptoms likely to come into play in a negative way as a result of the experience of being put on trial.’
Mr Darbyshire said that had Pilley’s ADHD been known the process of his trial would have ‘changed from start to finish’.
He referred to a statement from one of the jurors, who had said the way Pilley had spoken to the judge ‘was appalling’.
Andy Pilley became chairman of Fleetwood in 2003 and resigned after his 2023 conviction
‘It’s obvious that the applicant performed very badly in ways it is clear are completely consistent with ADHD symptoms,’ he added. ‘Can a conviction from such a trial properly be regarded as safe? In my submission it is clear that if Mr Pilley’s disability had been recognised or understood…the judge, prosecution, counsel and jury would have had a very different context in which to receive the evidence and conduct the trial.’
Mr Darbyshire added: ‘The trial process is designed as much for a defendant as any other witness to achieve their best evidence and that clearly didn’t happen. It’s absolutely clear that some of the form of questioning, would never have been as it were had the diagnosis been known at the time. It is therefore the applicant’s submission that the conviction is unsafe because of the disadvantage he experienced through the trial.’
Professor Susan Young, a leading expert in ADHD, gave evidence and disclosed that Pilley’s assessment had taken place after a close family member had been diagnosed. She said Pilley had displayed ADHD symptoms as a child when he had often played truant and left school with a single ‘O’ Level.
Andrew Thomas KC, who prosecuted Pilley in the original trial, pointed out that despite those symptoms Pilley had taken an administrative role in the Post Office after leaving school, which saw him jailed for theft. He then added that upon leaving prison he had ‘thrived’ as a salesman and ended up with 15 businesses employing 1,000 people.
Pilley, who owned energy providing business BES, was found guilty of two counts of using that firm with the intention of defrauding creditors, one count of false representation, and one count of being concerned with the retention of criminal property.
Mr Thomas added that there were numerous examples of Pilley ‘using high levels of language’ during his original trial, which included idioms and Latin phrases. Jonathan Laidlaw KC, who had represented Pilley at the original trial in Preston, was also called to the witness stand. He said that the case ‘keeps me awake at night’. ‘I’m genuinely worried by the events that emerged,’ he said, referring to the subsequent diagnosis. ‘I feel personally responsible because I didn’t realise (Pilley’s ADHD).’
Mr Laidlaw added that had he known of the disability he would have gone to the court pre-trial and suggested a host of measures be introduced, including the presence of an intermediary and extra breaks for Pilley, who spent 18 days giving evidence. There was also a long and often heated debate over the merits of an assessment carried out on behalf of the prosecution by a Professor Stuart Brody, including allegations that Prof Brody was not qualified to complete the task.
At various points throughout proceedings Pilley, in a room with two windows, sat back in his chair with his hands on his head. Mr Thomas questioned the honesty of Pilley when he was completing tests to highlight the extremity of his disability claiming he claimed he could not understand words he had actually used in court and describing such instances as ‘red flags’.
‘Mr Pilley dialled it up to 11 and amplified any weaknesses he had,’ he added. ‘Mr Pilley’s defence was a vintage Rolls Royce purring along. At some point the fan belt may have got noisy but its still a vintage Rolls Royce. His case was clearly prepared to the highest possible standards.’
Mr Thomas also pointed to evidence of criminal activity during the original case which he said was ‘overwhelming’ with fraudulent mis-selling by his staff known by owners and management alike.
‘The case took much longer than expected because he was allowed to speak to present his case,’ Mr Thoams said. ‘Everyone was conscious of the importance of making sure he wasn’t shut down.’
After retiring for around 10 minutes, Lord Justice Edis delivered the conclusion. He pointed out Pilley’s 18 days of giving evidence was spread over a longer period between January and April and said he had managed to set out his case ‘in precisely the way he wanted to’.
While he acknowledged that Pilley did have ADHD he noted issues with the reliability of tests and said that there was a substantial body evidence which showed how Pilley ‘functioned in the real world over a prolonged period’. Lord Justice Ellis pointed out that the existence of ADHD did not automatically mean Pilley was unable to ‘participate ineffectively’ in the trial.
‘The question is not on the diagnosis but whether the convictions are safe,’ he said. ‘The evidence demonstrates he participated actively in the preparation and conduct of his defence over a prolonged period. He was capable of giving detailed and articulate answers…the transcripts show he was able to engage with complex material.’
Lord Justice Edis added that Pilley’s success in business was initiated without a framework of support. ‘We have concluded that the convictions are safe,’ he said. ‘The application for leave to appeal must be refused.’
An application for costs will now be made by Cheshire West and Chester Council. Following the conclusion the situation was explained to Pilley, who left without making comment.
