A UNIVERSITY boss and his secret lover who systematically pilfered £500,000 from its coffers have both been jailed for five years.

Robert Smedley, who was pro vice-chancellor at Edge Hill University in West Lancashire, specially created a £53,000 salaried post for Christopher Joynson without revealing they were in a relationship.

And over the five years of the fraud 52-year-old Smedley authorised his invoices for education consultancy work which largely had not been carried out and beginning when Joynson was actually a full-time teacher in Leicestershire.

The cash was paid to two bogus firms set up by Joynson, who made fake email addresses in his dementia-suffering grandfather's name to try to fool bosses into believing they were legitimate.

Unluckily for them their scam unravelled when the university's finance boss spotted large payments going into one of these firms and after being confronted about it Smedley tried to explain it away but resigned 11 days later in the summer of 2014 while investigations continued.

Analysis of their bank accounts revealed that Joynson had paid Smedley £106,000 for renovation work on his home in Frankby Road, West Kirby and he had also transferred £98,000 to Smedley during his employment at the university.

They claimed they were just friends, but Liverpool Crown Court heard that police found revealing Valentine cards and they were sharing Smedley's home.

Joynson, 34, and Smedley, 52, both now of Grange Farm Crescent, West Kirby, denied the fraud allegations they faced but were convicted after a six-week trial earlier this month.

Judge Brian Cummings, QC said they had worked together to defraud the university out of £500,000 and he told Smedley that his "breach of trust was monumental."

He told them: "I sentence you on the basis that the fraudulent activity was both jointly conceived and jointly perpetrated" although there were distinctions in the roles they played.

Liverpool Crown Court heard that Smedley, who had been Dean of the Faculty of Education, had been the third most senior person at the university and represented it on national forums and with government departments.

He had been a member of the Board of Governors and Vice Chancellor John Cater described the fraud as a breach of trust putting at risk the reputation of the university built up over many years.

The defendants had "demonstrated a total disregard for the sustained hard work and commitment of the university's students, graduates and staff who together have built that reputation," he said.

Judge Cummings said that he accepted that Smedley had made a very important contribution to education generally and to Edge Hill University in particular.

"You were rightly respected in your field. Unhappily it was that factor which enabled you to commit fraud and to get away with if for so long.

"You were regarded as a man of absolute professional integrity and commitment; no one would have suspected your of fraud or questioned your decision.

"You took advantage of that to steal half a million from education.

"The sense of personal betrayal from some of your former colleagues, who gave evidence in the trial, was palpable."

The court heard that Smedley is an only child and his mother has serious health problems and his father is 82 years old.

"Being prosecuted and sentenced when one or both parents are at a vulnerable stage in life is a likely consequence if you choose to commit serious offences at the age you did," said the judge.

He told the two men, who showed no emotion: "I bear very much in mind that this will be a first custodial sentence for each of you and that for you in particular Robert Smedley it is accompanied by the complete destruction of your professional reputation - albeit that is entirely self-inflicted."

Smedley had been convicted of five offences of fraud by abuse of position and Joynson was convicted of four offences of fraud by false representation.

The court heard that the university has made a claim on its insurance policy and £450,000 had been paid out to them.

More than 33 members of staff were quizzed by police and 25 of them had to gave evidence in court.

Dr Cater explained that the in-house solicitor had spent the majority of the last 15 months dealing with the case and a temporary assistant had to be taken on.

Steven Swift, defending, said that Smedley hoped to be able to use his skill to teach fellow prisoners maths and rebuild his life when released.

Defence barrister Frida Hussain, said that Joynson suffers from diabetes and is on five different medications a day.

"When he is released he will have to start his life afresh as he is not young enough to bounce back."

Prosecuting counsel Jacob Dyer had told the jury: "The defendants were dishonest from the outset."

For most of the time of the fraud Joynson was on the staff at the university specialising in teacher training.

His combined income from his salary and the consultancy work was about £132,000 a year.

Smedley had created the post of partnership development officer for Joynson and said that a Criminal Records Bureau check was not needed as the work did not involve going into schools.

But it did involve such activities and Smedley had been anxious to avoid a CRB check as he knew Joynson had two police cautions, one involving a pecuniary advantage by not telling a school he worked at about his first caution.

Mr Dyer said: "Joynson submitted invoices for work for which he was not entitled to be paid and he lied on his job application form.

"Smedley abused his position in authorising these fraudulent invoices, removing the requirement of a CRB check and failing to disclose his relationship with Joynson.

"Smedley abused his position as Dean by his involvement in the recruitment and promotion of Joynson and by authorising payment of invoices, which clearly amounted to dishonest claims.

"Unbeknown to anyone at the university the two defendants were in a relationship and Smedley received the benefit of a large proportion of the money fraudulently obtained by Joynson.

"Joynson was not entitled to those consultancy payments as he had either not done the work or, such work as he did, formed part of his employment for which he was already receiving a generous salary".