Parson notes at 69 that Scouting in British colonial Africa conferred status, offered social mobility (even physical mobility, in the form of free rail passes) and signalled trustworthiness (and hence preferential access to employment and scholarships). That provided an incentive for identity subversion.
The only way of knowing if an African was a Scout was by the uniform (which often consisted of nothing more than a Scout badge pinned to a school shirt) and thus any African wearing a uniform could claim the privileges of the movement. The uniform could also be put to larcenous purposes because many rural communities assumed that anyone in uniform had the authority of a government servant. As a result, colonial officials had considerable problems with rogue Scouts or impostors who acquired a uniform by unapproved means. Most territories gave their Scout associations sole legal claim to their uniforms and badges, and the Ugandan government passed a specific ordinance barring Scouts from posing as government agents. ... Even registered Scouts often skirted regulations by buying rank and proficiency badges instead of earning them.He goes on to note control mechanisms such as registration schemes and blacklists (at 186) before commenting at 187 that
sometimes there were pragmatic reasons to impersonate a Scout. Boys desperate to find work masqueraded as Scouts to impress potential employers. These pseudo-Scouts usually claimed membership in another territorial Scout association on the assumption that it would be harder for local authorities to check their credentials ... Christopher Mutingi was arrested for collecting money from Nairobi shopkeepers to supposedly fund a Scout hike from Dar es Salaam to Kampala. Mutingi explained to the authorities that he wore the uniform because "people [were] kinder to him". An ex-Scout named Joseph Orawo became notorious in Uganda for using a forged Scout membership card to collect money in Kampala. The Ugandan police arrested him several times for illegally using ornate Scout uniforms, complete with epaulettes to add credibility to his activities. Adults also posed as Scoutmasters. One particularly brazen impostor claimed to be a touring area commissioner from Zanzibar and managed to charge a large tea party at the Queen's Hotel in Nairobi to the Zanzibar Scout Association.Identification on the basis of uniform meant that "Scout belts were a particular problem" (p189).
there was a steady flow of Scout belts into the hands of imposters in all three East African territories. The situation became so bad in central Kenya in the mid-1950s that the police detained every African wearing a Scout belt until he could produce proof that he was an authentic Scout or Scoutmaster ... The crackdown was so draconian that Kenyan Scout officials had to issue African Scouts special membership cards to prevent the police from confiscating their uniforms. ... the belts had such a high resale value that legitimate Scouts often sold them to raise money for living expenses and school fees.In 1960s South Africa
Some troops had only a few Scout badges, which their members shared by taking turns attaching them to their everyday clothes with safety pins. The [SA Scouting Association] subsidized badges to the point where they sold for just one cent, but many Scouts still could not afford them. ... the Scout establishment tried to make the African Scout uniform more affordable by making it simpler, but many Scouts objected on the grounds that the new styles were too different from the European uniform (p232)Meanwhile in R v Darwin and Anor [2009] EWCA Crim 860 the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has stated
... Africans had a great deal of difficulty earning badges and advancing to senior Scout ranks. The Scout authorities caught some boys forging badge certificates to overcome this problem. Yet African Scouts objected to the [Association's] attempts to draft an easier 'Native' Scout curriculum because they wanted to use the movement to demonstrate that they were as able and resourceful as European boys (p233).
This is a notorious case. Anne and John Darwin are a married couple of previous good character. Together they set up a fraudulent conspiracy. Its objective was to collect the insurance and pension money due to her on his death while he was still alive. So his death was faked, and she reported it as an accident. The deception worked. The money was collected and distributed between them. They told, or rather she on behalf of both of them, told many lies in furtherance of this objective and on their joint behalf she told and played out many falsehoods to their adult sons in order to ensure that the truth did not emerge and that the plans would come to successful fruition.
Their criminal partnership gave rise to a number of charges. On 13 March 2008, in the Crown Court at Teesside, before Wilkie J, John Darwin pleaded guilty to counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 17 in the indictment. On 23 July 2008, following a trial before the same judge and a jury, Anne Darwin was convicted of counts 1-14 and count 16 of the same indictment. On 23 July 2008 they were sentenced as follows. On each of counts 1, 2, 3, 7 and 14 (obtaining a money transfer by deception), Anne Darwin was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment; John Darwin was sentenced to 75 months' imprisonment. On each of counts 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16 (transferring criminal property), Ann Darwin was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment; in relation to John Darwin, those counts were ordered to remain on the file in the usual way. On each of counts 5 and 9 (converting criminal property), Anne Darwin was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment; those counts against John Darwin were ordered to remain on the file in the usual terms. On count 6 (using criminal property), Anne Darwin was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment; that count against John Darwin was ordered to remain on the file in the usual terms. On count 8 (obtaining property by deception), Anne Darwin was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment; John Darwin was sentenced to 75 months' imprisonment. On each of counts 15 and 17 (obtaining property by deception), John Darwin was sentenced to 75 months' imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appropriate orders were made under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Although on the face of it there were many more counts in which Anne Darwin was involved than her husband, it was accepted throughout that although the counts in relation to John Darwin when they were jointly charged should remain on the file, John Darwin was as guilty as she in relation to those counts which related to the laundering of the proceeds of the fraud. The facts require some further public recitation. In 2002 the couple were suffering financial difficulties and were coming under pressure to meet their debts due to credit card companies and mortgage providers. This criminal conspiracy was their response to their financial problems. After several months of discussion, the first step of which we are aware occurred in December 2001 when a new life insurance policy was taken out on John Darwin's life.
Three months later, on 21 March 2002, John Darwin staged his apparent drowning at sea in a canoeing accident. From this moment onwards these two people lived a lie. In the evening of 21 March the police at Hartlepool received a telephone call from Anne Darwin reporting that her husband had gone missing after canoeing in the sea. The report of his disappearance led to a rapid, expensive and resource intensive air and sea search. Throughout the night the Coast Watch, the Coast Guard, Air Sea Rescue, North East Air Support Unit and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution conducted a co-ordinated search of the sea and surrounding coast line. We must pause briefly to note that one important consequence of the actions of the appellants to this date was that a number of individuals became involved in the unpleasant and potentially dangerous task of trying to find and rescue him. A team of police officers was then deployed to continue the search which carried on until the end of May 2002, when police divers searched a rocky area known in the locality as the Blue Lagoon. They found a paddle and section of a canoe. This was later identified by Anne Darwin as part of her husband's canoe. In the meantime the appellants' sons offered their mother their immediate support. One travelled from Basingstoke to Hartlepool to be with her, and the second broke off a holiday in Canada to return home. Naturally the death of their father caused them both great distress. They were also concerned about their mother and the impact on her of the death of her beloved husband. When Mark arrived at the family home, she threw her arms around him, crying that she had lost him, that he had gone. She was sobbing uncontrollably. He felt that his world had been crushed. The sons also worried about how their mother would cope financially.
On 16 April 2002 Anne Darwin telephoned her insurers to advise them that her husband had been lost at sea. She sought to make a claim on the policy on his life. In August 2002 a body was found off the coast of Hartlepool. Anne Darwin was asked if she would go and identify it. However, before that happened it was established independently that the body was not that of John Darwin. When the police officer acting as the liaison officer informed her that it was not her husband's body, she broke down saying that she had wanted the body to be that of her husband so that he could be laid to rest.
Police inquires continued for many months. A witness appeal was made in September 2002. Anne Darwin contributed to the news release that was prepared. On 10 April 2003 a Coroner's Inquest was conducted into John Darwin's death. Anne Darwin and her sons attended. The inquest concluded that her husband had probably encountered difficulties at sea as a result of which he died. An open verdict was returned. He was declared dead.
After the inquest Anne Darwin told the liaison officer that with these findings she and her sons would achieve closure and she would be able to get on with her life.
Thereafter, claims were made on the various insurance and pension policies. The sons did not know the details. Quite innocently so far as they were concerned, but as part of the process of laundering the couple's dishonestly acquired funds, from time to time sums were transferred into their accounts with their agreement for the purchase of Premium Bonds. Although the bonds were bought in their names, they were under no illusion that they all continued to belong to their mother. In total something in the region of £250,000 was paid out under the policies and pensions schemes. There are, of course, frauds on insurers which produce greater financial rewards for the criminal, but what the appellants obtained was sufficient to wipe out their financial problems and to enable them to achieve substantial long-term financial security. Shortly after his disappearance, John Darwin returned home in disguise and continued to live in the area. He used the false identity of somebody who had died in childhood, and then lied his way into a new identity by obtaining a driving licence and passport and all the necessary documents required for modern living. Thereafter, he successfully managed to live with this false identity, undetected. At the same time Anne Darwin sold various properties in this country and enjoyed the profits. The money obtained by her was laundered through various carefully-structured transactions, including transactions involving John Jones, and eventually transferred to Panama. In due course she told her sons that she had set up a company in Panama of which she, her solicitor in Panama, and her sons were to be the directors. The company would be the legal owner of all her property in Panama and in this way Inheritance Tax would be avoided. She told her sons in 2006 that she would emigrate to Panama and settle there permanently. In October she formally emigrated to Panama. She took with her just over $1 million and left her sons with the impression that their widowed mother was now financially secure and settled in a new country of her own choice. In the meantime her husband had also taken himself to Panama. We do not accept that this was a relatively short-lived period of criminal activity. The sorting out of the dishonest accounts continued right up until mid-2007.
Probably because he wanted to resolve his relationship with his sons, on 1 December 2007 John Darwin flew back from Panama and walked into the West End police station in London and said that he believed that he was a missing person. He gave his correct name and claimed to be suffering from amnesia. He had no memory of anything after going on a cruise with his wife to Norway in 2000. He was released into the care of his two adult sons, and he persisted in this story to them. While staying with one of them he spoke to his wife in Panama. They apparently discussed what they would say to the police. He was arrested on 4 December. In the meantime, Anne Darwin had been approached by a member of the press in Panama. She was advised that she would be hounded by other members of the press and that he could assist her. She returned to this country on 9 December 2007. When she landed at Manchester Airport she was arrested.
It is clear on the evidence that the fraud only came to an end because they (or perhaps he) had had enough in the dislocation in their family life. Their return was not the consequence of remorse or a sense of guilt. What they were trying to do was to make up for the impact on themselves of the consequences of their own criminal activities. Both appellants were interviewed. Both prevaricated. John Darwin said that he had gone missing in 2002 and turned up at the family home some years later. Anne Darwin said that her husband had gone missing in 2002, that she genuinely thought he was dead, but that he had then turned up on the doorstep in February 2003, that is before the inquest had taken place and the fraudulent claims were made.
When interviewed in early January 2008, John Darwin admitted that he had claimed money to which he was not entitled by pretending that he had died in an accident at sea. Faced with his statement, on the same day Anne Darwin admitted that they had staged his death in order to clear their debts by claiming funds to which they were not entitled. At an early stage John Darwin indicated his intention to plead guilty. Anne Darwin pleaded not guilty, and at trial relied on the defence of coercion by her husband. The defence was rejected by the jury.
