Supervisor loses thefts appeal

Press, 4 June 1982, Page 5

Supervisor loses thefts appeal

In a case which he said was certainly a little unusual, and a most unfortunate one, Mr Justice Hardie Boys in the High Court yesterday dismissed an appeal by a Post Office Savings Bank supervisor against his conviction on two charges of theft by misappropriation, of sums of $lO2O and $4OO. from the savings bank's football club account, in July and September last year. The appellant." Colin Pounder. aged 34. had pleaded guilty to the offences in the District Court in January, and was subsequently convicted on each and sentenced to a total of 100 hours of community work. His counsel (Mr D. J. Taffs) had sought a discharge without conviction, under provisions of Section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act, in submissions at the District Court sentencing, and this was also the basis of yesterday’s appeal to ■ the" High Court.-

In his decision rejecting the appeal his Honour said the appellant had controlled the funds of the savings bank's football club, and had

applied funds on two separate occasions to his own purposes — the first bydrawing a cheque for $lO2O to pay to a racing syndicate of fellow employees to cover a debt he owed, and the second by drawing a cheque for $4OO to meet another personal commitment. The timing of loan application refinancing arrangements confirmed defence counsel's contention that the appellant was borrowing temporarily from the club, with the intention of repaying. his Honour said. He said the sad thing about this case was that although the money had nowbeen repaid by a loan from an associate "at work, who apparently would have been quite happy to have lent the money earlier to save all this occurring, the consequences of a conviction were extremelv drastic.

The appellant would lose his employment. which would make things extraordinarily difficult for him in maintaining home and family commitments.

Referring to counsel’s comment that those conse-

quences were far out of proportion to the seriousness of the offences, his Honour said it escaped his comprehension why the Post Office should think a man's suitability for employment depended on whether or not a conviction had been entered, rather than whether or not the offence charged was committed. However, he said, it was not for the Court to direct the Post Office as to how it administered its affairs and he had to accept that the consequences of a conviction would be as Mr Taffs had stated.

His Honour said the appellant obviously had social concerns at heart, and the offending was completely out of character. It appeared to have been a result of involvement in gambling “which has been the downfall of manv a man."

He said the case had given him considerable anxiety but he could not accept counsel’s submissions for a discharge. He considered the Judge imposing the convictions had taken into account all relevant considerations.

Where people had control of monev that belonged to others, there was imposed jn them a trust to account carefully and properly for the money and not use it for their own purposes, even if in the end they intended or hoped to repay.

When people in positions of responsibility failed to observe that obligation, then the consequences were always unhappy and disastrous.

Although the consequences were severe, the public interest required that an offence of this kind be not visited with a discharge, which really in the public mind amounted to a conclusion that the matter was of no great consequence from the community's point of view, his Honour said.

He said he could not uphold the appeal, sympthy though he had for the appellant. He hoped that his comments “might be of some assistance - they may not be — in dealing with the employment situation."