Receiving brings $l000 fine

Press, 7 December 1976, Page 7

Receiving brings $l000 fine

Because of the prevalence of burglary ini Christchurch the police railed for a deterrent j sentence when a hotel licensee appeared in the Supreme Court yester-* day for sentence on a charge of receiving I Stolen property. Mr Justice Casey fined j Kenneth Sheard, licensee of| the Cantabrian Hotel at the! corner of Cashel and Man-! Chester Streets, $lOOO on a charge that about March 81 he aided William John} McGreevy in disposing of|. two cameras and a binocu‘! Jar, of a total value of $542,1 when he knew they had

, been dishonestly obtained and thereby committed the ! crime of receiving. Evidence was given at !Sheard’s two-day trial which finished on a Saturday afternoon, that an undercover constable who had been directed to infiltrate Christchurch hotels to get evidence against persons who were “fencing” stolen property, found that the Cantabrian Hotel was being used |for such an operation. On March 8 William McGreevy and Billy Gardiner, who had previously supplied the constable with stolen goods, showed him a number of articles in the boot of a white Ford Capri car in the yard of the hotel. The two men appeared to be! at the centre of a web ofl (dishonest activity. When the constable re-'

turned to the hotel the same evening the two men were not there but after a telephone call was made Sheard sold him two cameras and a binocular taken from the boot of the Capri car for $BO. The articles had been stolen from a Kaiapoi home two days before. Mr K. Jones, for Sheard, said that the prisoner had triumphed over adverse circumstances in his youth and had established himself as a successful hotel keeper. He had played a very minimal part in the offence and had not done it for personal gain as he had committed it at the behest of his halfbrother McGreevy, whom he had just met and befr'ended. There was no evidence that Sheard had taken part in widespread criminal activity. The offence was an iso-

ilated lapse which was most unlikely to be repeated. Sheard could lose his publican’s licence because of the conviction and that would be a severe penalty in itself. Counsel asked for a monetary penalty to be Imposed instead of imprisonment. Al-1 though Sheard had heavy financial commitments he could afford to pay a substantial fine.

Mr D. J. L. Saunders, for the Crown, said that it was disputed that Sheard did not know about the widespread criminal activity at the

hotel. The undercover constable had been brought to Christchurch to combat the ever-increasing number of burglaries. Burglaries were reaching epidemic proportions in Christchurch. During the last 12 months there had been 4684 burglaries in the city involving more than $1 million w’orth of stolen property.

It was generally accepted that if there were no receivers there would be far fewer burglaries.

The evidence disclosed that the Cantabrian Hotel was the location where a considerable amount of stolen property changed hands. Mr Saunders said that he accepted that Sheard should not be visited with the offences that others had committed but he must have known what was going on. Ten charges had been laid

against persons employed at the hotel and one of those was Sheard’s half-brother. Mr Saunders submitted that a deterrent sentence was called for. His Honour said that the problem was that Sheard was appearing for sentence on a receiving charge which involved a relatively minor amount of property.

Mr Saunders replied that evidence had been given at the trial that Sheard had disposed of about 100 .watches.

His Honour said that there was no doubt that Sheard knew what was going on at the hotel but he would take into account that the offence arose because of Sheard’s association with his halfbrother, who had made a career of dishonesty. If it had not been for that association Sheard might not have been in Court.

With one minor exception

a long time ago there was nothing in Sheard’s record to indicate dishonesty. He had to be commended for

the way he had overcome adversity in his past life and had taken his place in the community. “If your involvement had been any more than that of a middleman you would have faced imprisonment. However, all the circumstances show that you played a minor part,” said his Honour.