Announcer ‘motivated by sheer greed’

Press, 28 March 1981, Page 4

Announcer ‘motivated by sheer greed’

Sheer greed had motivated a former 3ZB radio announcer and other persons to enter into conspiracies to defraud in relation to the “Magic Mini” and “Cash Connection” radio contests late last year, said Judge Bradford in the District Court yesterday. However, he told the defendant, lain Bruce McDonald, aged 26, that he did not consider it necessary to send him to prison “having regard to the nature of the offending and your personal circumstances.” Fines and restitution totalling $5BlB were imposed on the defendant, who was appearing for sentence on 11 charges of conspiracy relating to the “Cash Connection” contest, and one, relating to the “Magic Mini car contest. The defendant had admitted the “Cash Connection” conspiracies and had been convicted after a defended hearing on the car competition offence. The penalties imposed yesterday comprised fines of $2OO and court costs of $lO, on each of 10 “Cash Connection” offences and the “Magic Mini” charge, and restitution of $l7OB to the Broadcasting Corporation was ordered. On the remaining charge the Judge remanded the defendant to April 10 on his promise, through .counsel (Mr D. I. Jones) to voluntary contribute $lBOO (his share of the proceeds from the “Magic Mini” fraud) to a charity. The Judge said that once this was done a similar fine would then be imposed on that charge. A famine appeal

was suggested as the recipient.

Sergeant J. A. Ell represented the police at yesterday’s sentencing. During his submissions in mitigation Mr Jones referred to the pressures which the defendant had faced as a successful radio announcer in the public limelight. He said people had consistently telephoned him asking if they could win a prize or could he assist them to win a prize.

“People seem to be interested in cheating.” He said the defendant had succumbed to temptation. He accepted that what he did was wrong, but did not realise the seriousness or criminality of the offences. Mr Jones said a number of other persons involved in the contest frauds had been dealt with in court, and fines imposed. There had been suggestions that they had been coerced by the defendant,. but this was repudiated most strongly. ■ The defendant acknowledged his own guilt, but every other person involved was a willing participant. Some offenders in the “Cash Connection” contest were not even known to the defendant.

“He accepts full responsibility for his part but there were others who played a part,” counsel said. Mr Jones said the defendant had made a complete clean breast of the matter and had co-operated with the police. Referring to the “Magic Mini” offence, which the defendant had denied, Mr Jones said the circumstances were not as .sinister as they

first appeared. The defendant had passed clues on to another person, who passed them to a third person tin-, known to the defendant.

This person’s entry had been drawn as the winner of the car in a normally-con-ducted draw of correct entries.

Mr Jones said the probation report showed the defendant to be a man of excellent character before these offences. He had had a stable upbringing and had received quick promotion in his job “to a position of public importance and exposure.”

The loss of his career, and the publicity, had been a severe penalty.

Mr Jones said the defendant was a first offender and was not likely to offend again. He submitted that the public interest did not require a jail sentence as a deterrent, and suggested that a substantial fine, with restitution, or periodic detention, be imposed. The Judge said the defendant was the principal conspirator in the car contest. Without his efforts and information these frauds could not have been perpetrated.

The defendant was in breach of his contract with his employer in passing on information to which he was not authorised.

His actions prevented certain correct entries from being placed into the draw.

He traversed the defendant’s background and said the motivation of the defendant and others in this criminal conspiracy was simply “sheer greed.” The defendant, at his age and in his position, had no justification in seeking further enrichment.

The Judge held that if was not necessary to impose a prison sentence in this case. However, he must have regard to the deterrent aspect, and to ensure that no profit was gained by the offences,.

He referred to the inherent difficulties in law in ordering restitution in this case, involving a car given as a prize, but said he took account of counsel’s remarks that the defendant was prepared to pay restitution to his former employer, and pay the proceeds from the car fraud to charity. The Judge referred to the time wasted by listeners who entered the competition.

There would have been a great measure of public anger directed towards the defendant, he-said.