Liquor store worker stole from his boss 98 times, but future employers will never know about it

A man who stole cash from his employer 98 times has been discharged without conviction, and has been granted permanent name suppression. Photo / 123RF

He stole from his boss 98 times but was charged with only a single offence.

Now the former liquor store duty manager has avoided conviction and being named for several reasons, including that revealing his identity would harm his chances of getting another job.

The business owner from whom he stole told NZME that he and his wife were “more than extremely disappointed in this verdict”, and described the man as a “calculated and systematic thief who stole from us over a number of months”.

The 51-year-old earlier this year admitted a theft charge that related to 98 separate transactions in which he took a total of $2522 from the sale of alcohol from the liquor store where he worked.

He admitted how he had taken the money while working as a duty manager for the business from January 6 until February 26 this year.

The court heard it had happened while he was at “rock bottom” in the throes of struggles with a drug problem which had led to stealing in order to help fix drug debts.

On Friday he arrived at the Nelson District Court supported by family members who listened while his lawyer Alec Sacheun argued why a discharge without conviction was warranted.

The police said the thefts were caught on the store’s CCTV.

They showed how when the man received cash he’d void the purchase on the electronic register and then remove the amount from the daily takings.

Judge Tony Zohrab said there was a “degree of sophistication” about it, in that he was not simply putting his hand in the till and then putting the money in his pocket.

He also said some might say it was “extreme stupidity and naivety” to think he might have got away with it when there were CCTV cameras in place.

“I’m not sure I’ve seen a store without one,” Judge Zohrab said.

A man was caught on CCTV stealing cash from his employer. A judge said some might say that was "stupid and naive" to think he'd get away with it because he had not seen a store without one. Photo/123RF

Earlier this year he remanded him on bail for sentencing, which was meant to have happened in August, but it was adjourned to seek more material to support the request for continued suppression.

Police were neutral about the request for a conviction discharge but said it was an “oversight” when asked by Judge Zohrab why the offending had not resulted in a representative charge, and why the man had only been charged once, instead of multiple times.

“Strictly speaking, there should have been 98 separate charges,” Judge Zohrab said.

Police also said when asked why he had been charged with theft, as opposed to the more serious charge of theft by a person in a special relationship, that it “had been considered”.

The employer said it was unfortunate they were only able to prove eight weeks of offending due to security camera footage being overwritten, but in reality, they believed the value of their loss was four times greater.

“To see someone who actually admitted to this not only get off without having his name known in the community but to escape a conviction is mind-boggling.

“It really makes you wonder why we put in the effort to bring the charges against him and leaves us with a real lack of faith in the justice system,” the employer said.

The head of the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce told NZME if someone was caught stealing from a business, the owner would expect the law to be on their side, and to ensure it was dealt with correctly.

“That is what we all rely on,” said chief executive Alison Boswijk, also a business owner.

Judge Zohrab didn’t accept the argument that credit was due because the man had turned up at the police station and handed himself in – he didn’t have much choice given that he’d been seen on CCTV, and then approached by his employer.

“I accept he turned up at the police station, but he wasn’t telling them something his employer didn’t know.

“I appreciate he’s accepted responsibility, but it was only after he’d been sprung.”

Sacheun argued that the impact on the man, including that he had lost his job immediately had been “sufficiently punitive”. He had been on a sickness benefit until finding work he was currently in and planned to get a better job in future.

He was also proud that his son had just finished high school and was concerned about the impact on him if he was named publicly.

In considering if the matter warranted a discharge, Judge Zohrab had to be satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction were out of proportion to the gravity of the offending.

He noted the money stolen had since been repaid as soon as the man was able, using ACC payments he was receiving at the time.

Judge Zohrab also noted the man’s previous, unrelated offending which dated back a long time, and that generally, he was a person of good character who had made a number of contributions to volunteer groups and organisations.

He said psychiatric reports revealed the man was at low risk of reoffending, but that concerns existed about the impact on his past fragile mental health if his name was published.

Judge Zohrab also considered the argument that a conviction would be a “permanent blight” on his record.

“I appreciate you are not a young man, but you still have a family to support.”

He said the cumulative effect allowed him to conclude that the consequences of a conviction would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offending.

Similarly, grounds for continued name suppression were met, in that the principles of open justice, in this case, did not outweigh the public’s right to know, and that it would likely cause extreme hardship if the man was named, Judge Zohrab said.

A final order for name suppression was granted, taking into account the man’s history, the fact he was remorseful and had paid back the money, and factoring in matters around his mental health.