A conman who styled himself the 'Kardashian of Cheshire' has had his appeal against his prison sentence thrown out. Jack Watkin, 26, was jailed last year for a string of frauds where he fleeced clients out of tens of thousands of pounds in a luxury handbag scam.
Fraudulent scheme
Watkin, formerly of Wilmslow Road, Alderley Edge, used his charm and life of privilege to defraud victims in what detectives described as the 'frenzied' secondary market of the Hermes handbag. Victims were told he had contacts that could give them access to the handbags and that they could split the profits made on resale. But after handing over their money, there was no bag or sign of investment opportunities.
Last year, Watkin was jailed for four and a half years after pleading guilty to six counts of fraud, duping victims, including a close friend and his father, into handing over almost £200,000. A jury at Chester Crown Court heard he gained his victims' trust with an 'outward facade of a glamorous and luxurious lifestyle'.
Lavish spending and additional sentence
He spent his money in Harrods and staying in five-star London hotel The Dorchester, where he ran up a bill of more than £100,000, police said. He was also jailed for another 18 months after being found guilty of several charges of possession of indecent images.
At London's Appeal Court, Watkin's barrister Miss Caulfield argued the sentence was excessive because the judge had failed to take into account his diagnosis of autism, his immaturity and the fact that some of the money had been paid back.
Appeal dismissed
But those arguments were rejected by appeal court judges Lord Justice Foxton, Mr Justice Goose and Judge De Bertodano, who said a medical report which dealt with the diagnosis was 'expressly referred to'. In a written judgement they said: "The judge referred to the mitigating features of the applicant’s good character, his medical diagnosis and his age. We are satisfied that he plainly took them into account."
"Standing back, and taking into account everything that Ms Caulfield has said on the applicant’s behalf, the resultant sentence cannot be said to be manifestly excessive."
