Feb 14 2013 by Ian Proctor, Harrow Observer
KILLER wife Shirley Banfield – convicted along with her daughter of murdering her husband – has been ordered to pay back money to the public purse.
Their victim, Don Banfield, 63, the retired manager of the Hampstead branch of betting shop William Hill, disappeared from the family home of 17 years in Locket Road, Wealdstone, on May 2001. No trace of him or his body has ever been found, despite extensive searches by police.
Former tax inspector Shirley Banfield, 65, forged his signature and sold the property shortly afterwards, reaping his share of the £120,000 profit from the sale, and forged documents to switch pension payments to her account until they were stopped in 2008.
She and daughter Lynette Banfield, 41, denied murdering the Trindad-born gambling father-of-six but were convicted by a jury at the Old Bailey in April 2012.
Back at the same court on Monday, January 28, she was given a confiscation order of £140,638.48 and a compensation order for £294.51 was made in favour of the William Hill pension trustees.
Investigating officer DS Jeff Wall, of the Metropolitan Police’s specialist and economic crime command’s criminal finance team, said: “This is a great example of how thorough financial investigation can be used to obtain significant and valuable evidence in complicated historical cases, and how such evidence was later utilised to ensure that Shirley Banfield had financial benefit removed from her evil crimes.”
Shirley Banfield, of Ashford Road, Canterbury, Kent, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 18 years for murder. Lynette Banfield, of the same address, was sentenced to a minimum of 16 years’ jail for murder.
Mother and daughter had already admitted conspiracy to defraud, forgery, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit, and both received a concurrent prison sentence of four years and six months.
The Banfields lodged an appeal against conviction in April 2012 but a judge at the Court of Appeal refused them leave to appeal. They have re-submitted their appeal and it will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal at an unspecified date.