CONVICTED thief, fraudster and cancer faker Julie McBrien, also known as Julie Hogg (47), of Screeby Road, Fivemiletown, insisted she was “not going back to court” after it became clear the multiple reports obtained by her lawyers weren’t going to keep her out of jail.

McBrien rarely appeared in court over the elongated duration of proceedings against her in respect of £1.9 million fraud.

Having stifled her identity in media after threatening to self-harm if people discovered what she’d done, McBrien repeated this in respect of prison, leading to strenuous efforts to have her hospitalised instead.

Repeatedly treated differently to others coming before the courts, McBrien’s lawyers requested the prosecution omit certain details of her offending from public disclosure, but this was refused.

McBrien’s fraud and money laundering activities, totalling £1.9 million, almost brought her employers – Northern Mouldings Limited – to the verge of collapse.

Across eight years, she committed between 500-600 individual criminal transactions through unauthorised withdrawals, electronic transfers, fraudulent bank statements and by forging signatures.

The siphoned funds sustained McBrien’s opulent lifestyle in her lavish mansion, with £501,000 deemed as lifestyle and general spend, £676,000 on property development and interior design, £231,000 on fashion and beauty, and £145,000 on jewellery.

She provided false bank statements to the company board, with fictitious figures, and forged a former employee’s signature on cheques to herself while he lay in hospital after a serious road traffic accident in England.

She knew a close relative of the company Director had suffered a rare form of cancer, and “confided” in him that she had the same condition, affording her preferential treatment and time off.

But there was no cancer, and McBrien deployed the tactic to maintain her luxury lifestyle without interference.

Through forgery, she achieved sole charge of finances, countersigning cheques to herself, and creating false invoices. McBrien controlled the financial records, destroying all documentation upon realising she had been discovered.

Following her arrest, she claimed the funds were spent “just on holidays – there’s nothing to show for it”. Asked if anyone else was involved, McBrien replied: “Friends and family benefited, but they were totally unaware.”

She blamed the company accountants for “not doing their job properly – if they had, I wouldn’t be here”.

From the outset, McBrien consistent claimed to self-harm if identified by Press, which brought an unprecedented reporting ban on her identity for more than six years. However, it now appears this was grounded on embarrassment, which does not qualify as a reason for anonymity.

Press submitted numerous challenges on the ban, and sought answers to specific questions, none of which were ever addressed.

On one occasion, a defence lawyer urged the court to look to their expert evidence as opposed to “that which is peddled by Press”. Challenged on this remark, the lawyer retracted it.

Over the years, McBrien only attended court in person on a few occasions amid claims she was too unwell. While present to hear her offending set out at Dungannon Crown Court in September, she quickly reverted to form.

Scheduled to be sentenced in October, McBrien’s lawyers instead informed the court she had been “detained” in hospital. She had, in fact, been admitted overnight, then discharged.

Nonetheless, based on this, her lawyers again turned to their privately-sourced, London-based psychiatrist who had previously travelled to court to emphasise why McBrien should not be jailed, contending she had Martyrs Syndrome.

He dismissed suggestions McBrien was manipulating the situation, although he accepted that she lied about having cancer.

His latest report arrived in mid-October when, yet again, McBrien did not appear in court.

However, Judge Brian Sherrard QC told the defence: “This matter needs to be attended to. I’m not persuaded anything in the psychiatric report could interfere with the course of the administration of justice.”

He noted throughout proceedings no clinician “pushed the nuclear button to have the defendant committed under the Mental Health Order – none who have looked after or reported on her have taken that step”.

This particular point was repeatedly raised by Press when arguing against the reporting restriction.

The judge noted: “She appears to be unwilling to come to court. In the normal course of events, if someone is reluctant to come to court, they would simply be enforced.

“The only factor which could interfere with that would be if she was committed to a mental health institution, but there has been no step at all to that by anybody.” The defence responded, “I am a little uneasy at the suggestion she’s reluctant to come to court.”

Judge Sherrard sharply replied: “I don’t know whether you’ve had a chance to read the psychiatric report in which she says, on any number of occasions, ‘I’m not going back to court’. That’s unambiguous.”

While the defence confirmed this, he insisted it “isn’t a standalone statement”, and was instead connected to other issues.

“So is she coming to court then?” asked the judge. He was told: “If a date is fixed for sentencing, there is a requirement on the defendant to come to court. That’s understood. But to say she is ‘reluctant’ isn’t the full picture.”

Judge Sherrard said: “I’m not anticipating the entirety of the seven-page report will be encapsulated in that sentence. Nevertheless, the thrust of the report would definitely lead me to think this is not somebody who is necessarily willing to attend.”

When the defence assured this was not his understanding, the judge remarked: “Perhaps your reading of this is different to mine. I am heartened you don’t feel there is any particular obstacle to this woman coming to court.

“Are you suggesting we therefore fix a date for this matter to be determined?”

In response, the defence replied: “It’s a matter for the court.”

McBrien turned up on the next occasion, and was jailed for five-and-a-half months.

Not content with anonymity throughout the entire case, McBrien wanted this extended for life, which was successfully challenged by Press.

While this concluded dealings in respect of offending, Proceeds of Crime action now begins, which will see property obtained through stolen funds confiscated.

Included in that is McBrien’ mansion, which defence lawyers previously told the court was on the market, but this was later found to be inaccurate.