The former owner of Waterford FC and Fleetwood Town has lost a bid to challenge his convictions for multiple fraud offences at the Court of Appeal.
Andy Pilley, who had been the chairman and owner of the League Two side Fleetwood for 20 years until he stepped down in 2023, was handed a 13-year prison sentence in July that year, which led to the ownership of the League of Ireland side being changed to his son Jamie.
He had been convicted in May 2023 of two counts of fraudulent trading, fraud by false representation and being involved in the acquisition, retention, use or control of the proceeds of fraudulently mis-sold energy contracts, following a trial at Preston Crown Court.
At the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, barristers for Pilley said his convictions were unsafe as he experienced “disadvantage through difference” as a result of his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) not being recognised at the time of his trial.
The Crown Prosecution Service opposed the appeal bid at the two-day hearing in London.
In a ruling on Wednesday, Lord Justice Edis, sitting with Mrs Justice O’Farrell and Judge Andrew Menary KC, dismissed the challenge, stating: “There is no arguable basis upon which this appeal could depend.”
National Trading Standards said in May 2023 that the fraud related to a “web of interconnected companies that misled innocent small businesses” nationwide.
They continued that Pilley and others “were responsible for targeting small business owners and deceiving them into signing long-term energy contracts between 2014 and 2016”.
Pilley stepped down as chairman of Fleetwood Town following the trial, with the club stating at the time that the convictions “are against individuals and not Fleetwood Town FC, or any of the businesses associated with them”.
Adrian Darbishire KC, representing Pilley at the Court of Appeal, said on Tuesday that the impact of his client’s “unrecognised disability” on the trial “renders the convictions unsafe”.
He continued that Pilley did “very badly in the witness box” in ways which were “completely consistent” with someone showing the symptoms of ADHD, which in turn would have affected the jury’s impression of him.
He said: “It would be the height of naivety, or even disingenuous, to pretend that the jury will decide a case irrespective of the way in which a defendant gives evidence.”
In his ruling, Lord Justice Edis said the prosecution’s case was “based upon extensive documentary evidence” and that Pilley was “able to engage with complex material” during the trial.
He said: “The jury’s conclusions depended upon that material and (Pilley’s) explanation, rather than solely upon their impression of his demeanour.”
He continued that Pilley was a “highly capable and successful businessman”, and that his career achievements provided “significant real-world evidence of his capacity to cope with complex information”.
