Theft of lawyer’s file proved

Press, 12 June 1984, Page 14

Theft of lawyer’s file proved

A sickness beneficiary who was mistakenly sent a Wellington barrister’s file on a “sensitive” domestic proceedings relating to other clients had kept the file for the last 18 months to use as a “lever” against the barrister for the return of money. Evidence of this was heard in the District Court in Christchurch yesterday when Maurice Wicks, aged 58, denied a charge of stealing a domestic proceedings file belonging to John Vincent Barry McLinden, a Wellington barrister on or about August 1 last year. He was found guilty of the offence. Judge Fraser, held that the defendant was not legally entitled to keep the papers he was not entitled to have. The defendant had deliberately retained and still retained the file, contending that he was entitled to further money. This did not amount to “colour of right.” The Judge said he did not think the defendant honestly believed he was entitled to keep the file. He had taken advantage of an error with mixed motives—to extract money and to air a matter on which he had long-stand-ing dissatisfaction. The Judge then stood the case down until the afternoon session on the question of penalty, saying that the defendant’s attitude in relation to the return of the file would be a determining factor. After the resumption, at the request of defence counsel (Mr M. J. Knowles), the Judge remanded the defendant at large until tomorrow for sentencing. Mr Knowles submitted that the return of the file would satisfy the result of this case and meet the requirements of justice. A discharge without conviction

would then be appropriate. He said the defendant might be difficult to deal with but he was sincere in his belief. Wicks had had some disaffection, whether or not justified, with the particular litigation he was involved in. Prosecution evidence was given at length about the history of the matter, arising from accident compensation awards for injuries suffered in the 1960 s and later legal action taken by the defendant. Prosecuting, Sergeant M. P. Caldwell said that Mr McLinden had acted for the defendant in the Court of Appeal, Wellington, in early 1981. The defendant was successful in this and the respondents’ appeal was later dismissed. After these hearings, Mr McLinden returned the defendant’s papers to him by courier pack. He had accidentally included a domestic purposes file relating to another client but did not realise this until August 1. A letter written by the defendant disclosed that he had the other file but would not return it to Mr McLinden until certain matters were carried out by him, including his fees for the defendant’s actions, which had been deducted from the amount awarded by the Court. In September last year Mr McLinden complained to the Wellington police about the theft of the document and when spoken to, the defendant admitted having received the document. He refused to hand it over to the police. The defendant would not tell the police where he had the documents. He said he regarded his holding the documents as a lever to help him achieve his objectives. Sergeant Caldwell said the defendant still had the

domestic proceedings file. Mr McLinden said during hs evidence that the defendant was an exceptionally difficult client and had indicated in correspondence at some stage that if the respondents had moved these motions in the Court of Appeal, he was not responsible for any costs in opposing them. Detective Sergeant D. Porteous said he saw Wicks about his retaining the file sent inadvertently to him. The defendant said he was going to do something with it. He was told by the detective not to do anything rash. The defendant told the detective that money was being held that was rightfully his. All the money should have been sent to him, along with the solicitors’ account. The defendant, in evidence, said he accepted that the file did not belong to him. He did not accept that by keeping the file he had committed a crime. The defendant said he used the file as a lever to get money that rightly belonged to him, as ordered by the Court of Appeal. He regarded the money he recovered for his back injury as totally inadequate. Cross-examined, the defendant agreed he had been given sound advice by the detective but had kept the file as it was the only way he could get justice. He denied that he was going to hold the barrister to ransom to get the money. He said he did not return the file at the time because he used it as a lever. The defendant contended that the money awarded to him, and costs and disbursements, belonged to him. He expected Mr McLinden to get paid, but by the Christchurch Lawyers who were the respondents in the Court of Appeal matter.