‘Syndicate behind P.O. raid’

Press, 12 November 1981, Page 5

‘Syndicate behind P.O. raid’

A big-time crime syndicate had organised the job in which more than $44,000 was stolen from the safe of the Cranford Street Post Office, Mr Justice Quilliam was told in the High Court yesterday. His Honour jailed Bernard Gerrard de Hair, aged 26, a carver, who has a long list of convictions, for three years on charges of burglary of the Post Office and a garage to obtain cutting equipment to open the safe. De Hair pleaded guilty to the charges in the District Court and was committed to the High . Court by Judge Fraser for sentence. Others involved in the offence have not been arrested. The police statement said that in the early hours of October 20 the service station of Westminster Motors, Ltd, was burgled by forcing a sliding front door. Oxy-acetylene cutting plant valued att $5OO. a battery valued at $B4 and $65 in cash was stolen. Shortly after 1 a.m. the Cranford Street Post Office was broken into by smashing glass in a rear window and a set of metal security bars were forced from the wall. The safe was cut open using the gear stolen from the service station and $44,604 was stolen including $3ll in cheques. Damage to the safe and contents amounted to $3OOO. When de Hair was interviewed a short time later he admitted his part in the two offences. All the property, apart from the $65 stolen from the service station, was recovered, the police statement said. Mr G. E. Langham, for de Hair, said that his client had been forced into committing the offences six days after he had been released from prison by a crime syndicate which operated inside and outside of jail. The Court had to accept that crime in this country had now reached the stage vyhere persons inside prison instigated and organised crime which was carried out by their minions on the outside. De Hair claimed that he

came under an obligation to the crime syndicate when it looked after his de facto wife while he was serving time. He attempted to get out of the clutches of the syndicate by repaying it with money borrowed from friends but the underworld bosses would have none of that. Those unscrupulous gangsters had a hold over de Hair and they were not prepared to let him go. The offences bore all the hallmarks of organised crime. They were committed only six days after de Hair was released from prison and the target was a small suburban Post Office which normally would have nothing like $44,000 in the safe in cash. On most occasions most of the contents would have consisted of cheques. At this stage Mr Langham handed his Honour a statement which had been written by de Hair. Mr Langham said that the probation report held out some hope for de Hair who was a very talented carver. He had had his facial tatoos removed and he did not shirk his responsibilities and had written to his creditors advising them that he was in jail. Within hours of his arrest de Hair’s de facto wife, whom he loved deeply, was visited by representatives of the syndicate. It all indicated that he was not the prime mover but rather a pawn in a big organisation. He had been given favours and they had been called up, Mr Langham said. His Honour said that de Hair’s record was a bad one and it appeared that he was unable to stop offending. He had been sentenced to two terms in borstal and had served jail sentences up to two years. An unusual feature of the two offences was that it was said that they arose from pressure applied to de Hair by a criminal network operating in and out of prison. The professionalism which that suggested was very disturbing. But he could give little weight to that. Had de Hair

made disclosures which resulted in the smashing of the criminal network it would be a strong mitigating factor and the Court could have taken a much more lenient point of view. He could understand the fear and loyalty which might have prevented de Hair from going that far. But while there remained people who were prepared to carry out the work of organised crime there was little alternative to the Court. The nature of the burglaries suggested a high degree of planning and that indicated that de Hair might not have been the instigator of the offences. The sentence had to bear some relationship to the offences. The proper sentence would have been one of five years imprisonment, but for the reasons he had indicated a term of three years would be imposed. He would recommend that the term be served in a prison away from Christchurch because of the influences to which counsel had referred, said his Honour.