Convicted kidnapper John Leary loses inheritance for lying that he was homeless and broke

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 6 years ago

Convicted kidnapper John Leary loses inheritance for lying that he was homeless and broke

By Kate McClymont

John Leary, who was jailed for kidnapping and holding his own child for ransom, has lost his inheritance from his mother after he was exposed lying about his circumstances to get a larger slice of her estate.

A NSW Supreme court heard that Leary, 49, was to have received $285,000 from his mother Colleen Pidcock, a renowned bridge player, who died in August, 2014.

John Leary and his mother Colleen Pidcock in 2007.

John Leary and his mother Colleen Pidcock in 2007. Credit: Bob Pearce

Not content with an equal share of his late mother's estate, Leary sued the NSW Trustee and Guardian demanding his share be increased to $400,000.

John Justin Goyen Leary, the youngest of four children Mrs Pidcock had with her first husband, Andrew Leary, the long-time barrister to crime kingpin Lennie McPherson, argued that he was entitled to a larger share on the grounds that he was homeless, penniless and dependent on a disability pension.

In fact Leary, upon hearing his mother and stepfather John had terminal illnesses, had taken out insurance on their lives. In what Justice Julie Ward described as "morally repugnant conduct", Leary collected $110,000 upon their deaths.

In 2013, Leary also collected $450,000 from a travel insurance claim. Far from being penniless, the court also heard he had funds in bank accounts and had been trading in shares.

But leading up to a two-day hearing in May, 2017, Leary deliberately divested himself of or hid most of his assets, including removing $240,000 from a cash management account.

In a statutory declaration made on the same day as her will, Mrs Pidcock stated: "John believes that he has not been treated the same or as well as his brothers and sister." Of his claim that he had not been given the same educational opportunities as his siblings, Mrs Pidcock pointed out that he had been expelled from four schools: De La Salle College, Caringbah; Christian Brothers, Sutherland; St Joseph's College, Hunters Hill; and Marist Brothers, North Sydney.

"His criminal activities have cost me more than half a million dollars, not to mention the worry and sadness," Mrs Pidcock stated.

Advertisement

Mrs Pidcock was referring to Leary's jail term of 15 months with a non-parole period of three months for the kidnap and ransom of his own child.

In October 2006, Leary cleared out his bank accounts, collected his young daughter from day care and fled overseas.

Upon arrival in Singapore, he left messages on his wife's phone demanding she put $1.3 million into his bank account otherwise she would not see her child for two years. After five months on the run, he was arrested in Phuket, having illegally entered Thailand.

His mother, brother James and James' wife, who tried to convince him to come home, were all charged with being an accessory after the fact. Those charges were not pressed. However, Mrs Pidcock forked out more $500,000 on legal fees for her wayward son and the other family members. For his part, Leary denied he had obligation to repay his mother.

Despite the grief he caused his mother, Justice Ward noted that Mrs Pidcock wished to provide for all her children on an equal basis.

However, it is unlikely that Leary will now receive anything.

In a judgment on costs, handed down last week, Justice Ward found that Leary had pursued his claim on self-admitted false evidence and had sworn false affidavits to support his claim.

Justice Ward ordered Leary's inheritance be used to pay his legal costs, estimated to be between $150,000 and $200,000, as well as indemnity costs for the executors of his mother's will up to the date of the two-day hearing in May 2017.

"This Court should not be seen to condone conduct of the kind in which Mr Leary on his own evidence has engaged, conduct which amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court," said the judge.

Most Viewed in National

Loading