A “manipulative and controlling” bigamist who married his teenage step-daughter while still wed to her mother has been spared jail.
In a bizarre and unusual case, Maidstone Crown Court heard John Ingram had “exploited and abused the trust” of his family for many years.
John Ingram married his step-daughter in 1988
As well as marrying the 16-year-old in September 1988 at a ceremony attended by her mum – his spouse – he claimed to those officiating that any previous marriages had ended.
He also signed the certificate as ‘Neil Carr’ having changed his name by deed poll in order to marry again, and that surname was used by his genuine wife when she witnessed the same marital document, the court was told.
Ingram, now 69, fathered several children with both women, although many of the youngsters had grown up unaware of paternity, and it was not until February 2020 that he was arrested in relation to his deceptive lifestyle.
When interviewed by police, he confessed and claimed the motive for the illegal marriage was financial.
Ingram, of James Street, Sheerness, later pleaded guilty to bigamy when he first appeared before Medway magistrates in May last year.
But because of the seriousness of the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, the case was committed to the crown court for sentencing.
At that hearing on Monday (January 6), prosecutor Jeremy Kingsford said Ingram had married his wife in January 1983, before getting wed illegally to his step-daughter five years later.
Referring to the police interview after arrest, the prosecutor added: “He admitted the offence and claimed he had married to allow her (his step-daughter) to be entitled to additional government benefits.
“He confirmed he had changed his name by deed poll to do this. He told police that (his wife) was present for the wedding ceremony and that when he married (the step-daughter) she was 16 and the relationship was consensual.”
John Ingram admitted bigamy when he appeared in court
Ingram also told officers his legal spouse did not know that he was the biological father of all the children he shared with her daughter.
Mr Kingsford said official checks carried out during the police investigation confirmed neither marriage had legally ended in the intervening years.
Ingram, who is known to have used several aliases in the past, has eight previous convictions for 19 offences committed between 1973 and 1992.
Although said to be “old”, they include 17 offences of dishonesty, such as theft and obtaining property by deception.
The pensioner’s current relationship status was not revealed in court, although it was said by his barrister Mark O’Connor that he was the sole carer for the older, now dementia-afflicted, woman.
Mr O’Connor also told the hearing that any deception arising from the bigamy was against the institution of marriage rather than the two women.
Revealing how Ingram’s then wife had also used the name ‘Carr’ to sign the marriage certificate when she acted as witness at the illegal ceremony, he said: “In this case, the two women involved and Mr Ingram were all cognisant to the fact that this was a bigamous marriage when it was entered into.”
Furthermore, Mr O’Connor said any distress caused to the children over paternity was not a result of the criminality but by “the decision of the parents not to inform them who their biological father was”.
Arguing that the bigamist could be spared jail, with any impact of a custodial sentence being “grave” due to his caring responsibilities, the barrister added: “There are elements of deception and he has changed his name by deed poll to allow the marriage to go ahead.
‘Bigamy undermines the institution of marriage…’
“But the deception is to the institution of marriage, rather than the women involved.”
When asked by the judge, Recorder David Vince, the reason for committing bigamy, Ingram himself confirmed from the dock that it was to enable his step-daughter to obtain benefits.
No explanation for the lengthy delay between arrest and first court appearance could be given by the prosecution, although it was accepted it was not the fault of the defendant.
However, it was a factor, along with Ingram’s guilty plea and his role as a carer, that the judge said he had taken into account when deciding that the appropriate punishment could be community-based.
But he told Ingram: “Bigamy undermines the institution of marriage but aside from that, in this particular case it was essentially a crime of deception, though not to the women concerned but to those officiating and to anyone else who were deceived by being shown evidence of the marriage.
“You falsely claimed, as it is clear on the marriage certificate, that you were no longer married, all previous marriages having been dissolved.
“You committed this offence to provide access to benefits to which she would not otherwise be entitled, and that is an aggravating factor.”
He accepted there was no evidence of any distress having been caused to her, nor that she had been the victim of deceit.
“Indeed, it is clear she married you in the knowledge you were already married, albeit she was very young at the time – 16 years of age – and there must be some doubt as to the extent to which she fully appreciated what she was doing,” the judge continued.
The case was heard at Maidstone Crown Court. Picture: Sean McPolin
“Your (then) wife was a witness to the marriage and was fully cognisant to what you were doing.”
But Recorder Vince added that the children had suffered “considerable distress”, with the impact felt “to this day”, by the lies they had been told.
He also told the OAP that he agreed with the author of a pre-sentence report that no insight into his offending had been demonstrated.
Furthermore, the same report writer considered him to be a “controlling, manipulative man who has exerted power over his family members, exploiting and abusing their trust”, the court heard.
But Recorder Vince added that while that “may or may not” be the case, and was contested by Ingram himself, he faced sentencing for bigamy alone.
Ingram, who relies on a state pension for his income, was handed a two-year community order with a condition he undertakes up to 45 rehabilitation activity requirements.
He was also fined £300 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £150.
The minimum age for marriage and civil partnership in England and Wales was raised from 16 to 18 years by a law change that came into force in February 2023.