Former Lyttelton Town Clerk for trial

Press, 19 July 1988, Page 19

Former Lyttelton Town Clerk for trial

A former Lyttelton Borough Town Clerk, Donald Allan Hillier, aged 42, a financial adviser, will face trial by jury in the District Court on a charge alleging theft of $3OO by failing to account for the sum to the Borough Council in 1984. After an all-day preliminary hearing in the District Court yesterday, Mrs F. M. Cox and Mr W. G. Blair, Justices of the Peace, held there was sufficient evidence to commit Hillier for trial. They remanded him at large pending a date for his trial. The charge Hillier faced was that between September 1 and November 30, 1984, having received from Robin John Beattie, of the Lyttelton Rugby Football Club, a cheque for $3OO, on terms requiring him to pay proceeds to the Lyttelton Borough Council, he fraudulently omitted to account for the proceeds and thereby committed theft.

Hillier was represented by Miss M. J. Dew. Sergeant M. J. South prosecuted. The charge arose from the rugby club’s senior team being allowed the use of a council mini van for the trip to Motueka. A detective said in cross-examination that the police did not allege Hillier took the money for his own use.

Geoffrey Clarence Adams, a watersider, and Lyttelton Borough councillor, said that while he was chairman of the council’s works and reserves committee in 1984 Hillier asked him for permission for the rugby club to have the use of a mini van to take team members to Moteuka for a week-end. The van was used by the council to transport P.E.P. workers.

Mr Adams said he told Hillier he was not happy about its use and they argued, Hillier saying it was going anyway. Mr Adams said he sought assurances that the vehicle would be driven by council employees who were members of the club, and that the club would pay the same amount of hire as for a second vehicle it was hiring commercially for the same trip. After later learning there was no record of payment from the club, he checked with club officials and ascertained that a cheque had been paid to Hillier. He then reported the matter to Mr G. T. Broker, Deputy Town Clerk at the time (and now Town Clerk). Cross-examined, Mr Adams said that when they argued about the use of the van Hillier said it

carried P.E.P. workers, which was the responsibility of the Labour Department. The Borough Council merely acted as administrator. As the Town Clerk was the administrator, Hillier had told him, the van was being taken to Motueka. Asked if it seemed strange that Hillier should telephone to ask his permission when he (Hillier) had already made a decision, Mr Adams said that was correct. He said Hillier knew better than anybody else that only the full council could give the use of council vehicles to outside organisations. He said he believed the van used for P.E.P. workers was subsidised by the Labour Department which paid most of the running costs. Mr Adams said it was not correct that Hillier had obtained permission from him to let the rugby club use the vehicle, and that having obtained that permission Hillier felt justified in allowing the club free use of the vehicle. Mr Adams said he was not aware that the Lyttelton West School had used council vehicles for working bees at week-ends. He said he was aware that the Lyttelton Horticultural Society on several occasions had used a truck, with the council’s permission, to transport displays to Christchurch. This use had been granted free of charge. Mr Adams was asked why, if he was so concerned about the conversation he and Hillier had had over the van, he had not checked that the payment for its use had gone through.

He said he had complete faith in Hillier, who was the council’s executive officer. He assumed Hillier would follow the matter through. Mr Adams was told by Miss Dew that nothing had been done about the matter until two years later, "when there were other difficulties over Hillier’s Town Clerk’s position, leading eventually to his resignation.”

Mr Adams said he did not check on Hillier. The council, while checking on other matters, came across this matter.

Two rugby club members, Robin John Beattie and Clinton John Norris, gave evidence and said they were signatories to cheques on the club’s senior team’s account. Detective R. T. G. Ealam gave evidence of investigating the complaint of theft.

In a written statement, Hillier allegedly had said that Cr Adams had decided that if the club’s trip did not arouse much attention no charge would be made for the use of

the council van. Hillier said he believed Cr Adams did this as he had earlier refused council assistance for lighting and other facilities for the club and had'“got offside” with the club, which had 400 members. Detective Ealam also gave evidence relating to his investigations of cheques issued by the club about the time of the trip to Motueka, September 1 and 2, 1984. He did not agree, in cross-examination by Miss Dew, that the evidence disclosed no link between Hillier and the cheque for $3OO other than the “coincidence” of dates. Referred to the fact that the $3OO cheque was later paid back into the club’s senior team account, Detective Ealam said he could but guess why Mr Beattie could not remember details of the transaction. Detective Ealam agreed that the police did not allege that Hillier took the money for his own use. Miss Dew submitted at the completion of the police case that there was insufficient evidence to commit Hillier for trial. There was no real evidence in regard to the $3OO cheque to link it to Hillier. Mr Beattie’s evidence was that his belief was that the cheque concerned, for payment for hiring the council’s van, would have been much less than $3OO. The cheque butts had been lost and the signatories could not remember to whom the cheque was paid and what it was for. It was unlikely that the council would have charged $3OO, or the club would have hired the van for this amount, when a commercial operator had charged less than this for the hire of a second van used on the same trip. The police, having brought the charge, had to prove that the cheque for $3OO had been used in an offence by Hillier. She submitted there had been no evidence of fraudulent intent to deprive the council of any money. Hillier considered he had the permission of Cr Adams and he (Hillier) had discretion in his position of Town Clerk. He had made no money from the transaction; evidence was that the cheque allegedly involved was subsequently paid back into the club’s account.

Sergeant South said a "process of elimination” showed that the $3OO cheque was the only one which could have been involved. All the others had been accounted for. He submitted there was sufficient evidence to commit Hillier for trial.