Conman who made £1.5m selling 'Scottish-grown tea' unlikely to lodge appeal

Lawyers for a “tea planter” jailed for buying tea from around the world and passing it off as grown in Scotland have told a court that it is now “very unlikely” that he will be able to appeal.

Thomas Robinson, 56, of Amulree, Perthshire, was found guilty by a jury last year of carrying out a fraud involving “significant, determined and sometimes complex planning”.

Trading as “The Wee Tea Plantation”, Robinson, also known as Thomas O’Brien or “Tam O’Braan”, ordered tea plants from a gifts nursery in Sussex and planted them in the kaleyard of a former sheep farm near Loch Tay.

He showed them to buyers from upper-class outlets, including Fortnum & Mason, and claimed his tea was “the [late] Queen’s favourite”.

In fact, he bought over a tonne of cheap foreign tea by mail order, repacked it, and sold it on.

He is facing action under the Proceeds of Crime Act to confiscate up to £1.5m in profits from the scam.

The confiscation has been delayed by the threat of an appeal by Robinson against his conviction.

Any appeal would need approval from a High Court judge to allow it to be lodged at a very late stage.

Robinson, who was jailed for three-and-a-half years, is already free, having been released in May due to prison overcrowding.

On Monday, solicitor Liam Runciman, for Robinson, told Stirling Sheriff Court that he had been informed that the “prospect of a successful statable appeal” was very unlikely.

He said that Edinburgh solicitors who are dealing with the appeal process had undertaken to confirm next month “that the appeal is no more”.

Mr Runciman said: “They do not think there is going to be one.”

Mr Runciman said a valuation of Robinson’s property had been carried out, and details had been provided to the Crown.

Crown experts will now study the valuation.

The sum that Robinson is found to have profited by his criminal activity now stands at £1.142m.

But he cannot be forced to pay more than his “available assets”.

Sheriff Euan Gosney continued the case to a proof hearing on October 27.

Robinson, who was not present in court and was said to be “in London”, was ordained to appear at the proof hearing, and also a further preliminary hearing on October 21.

At his trial, Robinson, a father of four, denied the crime, claiming that paperwork he could have used in his defence had been destroyed in a flood.

Mr Runciman said that “missing papers” was the reason that no application for leave to appeal had been lodged.