D1 originally claimed damages against the council stating that he had tripped on a pothole on 11 June 2006. His friend, D2 was there with D1 at the time of the accident and had called an ambulance and backed up D1’s case, as did D1’s father, D3.

The council undertook initial enquiries and admitted liability to D1.

However, when a medical report was produced on behalf of D1, it revealed that the contemporary medical records were inconsistent with the allegations made. They suggested that D1 had been injured when he had fallen from a wall. Therefore, the admission of liability was withdrawn.

Despite this, D1 issued proceedings against the council and presented a claim in excess of £100,000.

However, once the ambulance records and in particular the recording of the initial 999 call were reviewed, it was revealed that D1 had in fact fallen from the wall which was 10 to 15 minutes walk away from where he said he tripped on a pothole.

Shortly before trial D1 discontinued his claim and the council recovered its costs.

As a result of D1’s actions, D1, D2 and D3 were prosecuted for contempt of court.

D1 admitted most of the counts of contempt, as did D2.

D3 denied the charges and continued to argue that he had no knowledge of the fraud.

However, the Court found it did not accept the evidence of D3 and found in fact that he was the driving force behind the claim.

As a result of this, D1 was sent to prison for two months, D2 was sent to prison for one month, and D3 was sent to prison for four months.