London - A former employee of the Diocese of Westminster has been convicted over a series of cash thefts which, as the court heard, totalled almost £100,000 in less than a year. On 6 February, at Southwark Crown Court, Francisca Yawson (37) received a two-year suspended prison sentence, avoiding immediate custody despite conduct the judge described as serious and repeated. Yawson, a mother of four, worked in the diocese’s central London division as a Gift Aid and operations technician: a post linked to day-to-day administration and to Gift Aid, the UK tax scheme that allows charities to reclaim tax on eligible donations. It was in that setting, prosecutors said, that she allegedly bypassed internal procedures and controls, arranging nine bank transfers to herself.
In court it was stated that the transfers took place between September 2018 and August 2019, with amounts rising over time: from the first sums - including an initial payment of £247 - to a single transfer of almost £20,000. Prosecutors argued that the dates and figures of the disputed transactions matched the movement of money into the defendant’s personal accounts, pointing to a pattern of systematic misappropriation. The harshest point, laid out starkly in court, concerned what the money was used for. According to the prosecution, these were funds that could have supported work for the homeless and helped sustain community kitchens; instead, they were allegedly diverted to personal spending, including purchases at a department store and transfers totalling £8,500 to her grandmother in Jamaica. Judge Mark Weekes described the conduct as a way of maintaining a lifestyle “in a grossly improper and dishonest manner”, drawing attention to the real-world harm caused when resources intended for charitable support are taken from those who are most vulnerable.
The sentence: suspended custody, unpaid work and partial repayment
Yawson admitted guilt, pleading guilty to nine counts of theft. The sentence imposed by the court was two years’ imprisonment suspended, alongside an order to pay £1,000, complete 150 hours of unpaid work, and undertake 15 hours of a rehabilitation programme requirement. In practical terms, the suspension means she risks being sent to prison if she breaches the conditions.
A decisive factor in the final assessment was time. The judge described as “shocking” the delay in bringing the case to court. It was recalled that the police had wrongly closed the investigation between 2021 and 2025; the file was later reopened. Weekes said that, had the conviction been secured in 2019 or 2020, the most likely outcome would have been immediate custody, adding that the defendant was “lucky because of the passage of time”. That remark inevitably raises a broader issue: when proceedings drag on, the effectiveness of the criminal response is weakened. This is not merely procedural. It affects deterrence, public confidence, and the perception that justice is administered with fairness. The defence focused on the personal consequences already faced by the defendant: the loss of her job, reliance on state benefits, and the psychological burden of a case that has dragged on for years - which, counsel said, was made heavier by the presence of a newborn child. It is a familiar script: family circumstances are put forward to elicit sympathy, to reduce the perceived gravity of the conduct, and to shift attention away from the responsibility of someone who has betrayed a position of trust.
The court, while taking those points into account, brought the matter back to its core. Anyone handling money that comes from donations carries a stricter duty of honesty and transparency than most, because those resources are entrusted for a defined purpose and affect people in fragile circumstances. In that sense, the English court’s response was clear: a serious offence, committed repeatedly and at the expense of a community, was treated as such - without allowing the “human” argument to become an excuse.
The diocese’s response: stronger controls and recovery action
The Diocese of Westminster said it reported the matter to the police and to the relevant statutory authorities as soon as the missing funds were discovered, following established internal procedures. In its statement issued after the hearing, the diocese said it was deeply disappointed by the length of time it took for the case to reach court, explaining that it continued to press for the matter to be reconsidered after the initial closure. Organisationally, the diocese says it has reviewed and strengthened operational processes, governance arrangements and control systems, particularly in the oversight of Gift Aid practices, with the aim of reducing as far as possible the risk of a similar incident. At the same time, it reiterated its intention to pursue the full recovery of the sums taken, while encouraging parishioners and donors to report any suspected irregularities, internally and to the authorities.
In this case, justice and the Church meet on the most sensitive ground there is: the protection of donations and the credibility of those who administer them. But there is an even heavier point - one that many pretend not to see. For years, a toxic narrative has been built around the clergy, portrayed as structurally corrupt, obsessed with money, and inclined to abuse power. Systematic smear campaigns have been built on that caricature, and the outcome is plain: pressure has grown to replace priests with lay staff even in sensitive roles, as though being “lay” were, in itself, a guarantee of integrity. It never has been. On the contrary: cases like this show that certain forms of disloyalty are far from rare among lay staff too - and in some settings they can be even more frequent. The same can be observed in the Vatican: where, once, the isolated episode of a dishonest cleric might occur, today the number of lay figures handling money, procedures and paperwork with the same opacity is growing - and they often shield one another, inside networks of complicity and silence.
The issue, moreover, is not only individual guilt. It is the devastating effect that a breach in controls - especially when exploited deliberately and repeatedly, as the diocese itself wrote - has on the bond of trust between communities and benefactors. And when that trust is betrayed, it does not return easily. It takes time - a great deal of time.
Fr.C.A.
Silere non possum