Judge critical of Post Office

Press, 9 March 1984, Page 10

Judge critical of Post Office

Nelson reporter

The Post Office came under scrutiny in the High Court at Nelson on Tuesday from Mr Justice Jeffries.

Brian Morel Bryce, aged 36, a Post Office supervisor, was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for thefts totalling $26,430 from the Nelson Post Office over an eight-month period. Mr C. N. Tuohy, counsel for the defendant, had earlier submitted that the thefts would probably not have been discovered had the offender not confessed. His Honour regarded the situation as “a serious indictment” of the Post Office system.

Earlier this year Bryce had pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing the money while a servant of the Post Office.

When Bryce had appeared

in the District Court at Nelson, Judge Headifen had declined jurisdiction. At that time the Court was told that during the eight months between February 1 and September 30 last year, Bryce was proSty supervisor at the ef Post Office, Nelson. He was responsible for preparing vouchers which authorised payments to contractors employed by the department on maintenance work in the Nelson-Marl-borough district. When he got into financial difficulties after buying a property to grow kiwifruit, Bryce had paid out vouchers to two non-existent firms and he had collected and used the cheques for nonexistent work on Post Office buildings. The thefts came to light when Bryce confessed his

offending to his wife and the next day to the Post Office. The sum of $ll,OOO was immediately rapaid and a cheque for the remaining $15,438 was available to be paid into the Court, Mr Tuohy told Judge Headifen.

In his submissions in the High Court, Mr Tuohy said the offences were not premeditated. Bryce had hit upon the idea when he was making out vouchers for legitimate firms, as a means of seeing him over his financial difficulties.

“He fooled himself into believing it was in some sense a loan and could be repaid. He had actually thought out a method of making repayment,” said Mr Tuohy. Eventually his conscience got the better of him. Mr Tuohy said he had spoken to the Chief Post-

master and was told that it was unlikely the offences would ever have been discovered if Bryce had not engineered the discovery. His previous character was unblemished, he had two very young children, was a hard worker and good family man. Full restitution had already been made, said Mr Tuohy.

His Honour said he had considered the probation officer’s suggestion of a community-based sentence, but, regretfully, felt he must reject it. Counsel had said the Post Office might never have discovered the theft had Bryce not confessed. “I regard that as a serious indictment of the Post Office system,” said his Honour.