Employee gets 16 months for theft

Judith Cassarea Lewis was sentenced last week to 16 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to the theft of $67,278.37, making documents without authority and obtaining property by deception while she was employed by Kinetic Partners as an office assistant.

Magistrate Valdis Foldats said the correct starting point for the sentence was two years, given the amount of money involved in this breach of trust. However, he gave Lewis a full one-third discount for her guilty pleas.

At a hearing in February, defense attorney Paul Murphy had urged the court to say that the sentence could be suspended because the delay in proceedings was part of what amounted to exceptional circumstances. The offenses occurred between November 2009 and July 2011 and Lewis effectively admitted her involvement in August 2011.

“It must be a form of punishment for her to have had the sword of Damocles hanging over her,” he said.

Mr. Murphy also referred to the reason Lewis gave for her offending: “She has maintained to me that she was in an abusive relationship with someone who was not employed and he brought considerable pressure on her [to get money].” He accepted that this pressure did not amount to duress.

The attorney also argued that the bulk of the delay was not Lewis’s responsibility. He noted that he did not represent her until the end of 2012 and, after she entered guilty pleas in February 2013, he requested psychiatric and psychological reports. Thankfully, they did not reveal anything serious, but the final report was not received until January 2014.

Crown Counsel Candia James disagreed. She said there was nothing unusual about the case that would amount to exceptional circumstances. She pointed out that there were numerous offenses [over 50 separate transactions] over an 18-month period and involving a large amount of money, so it would take time to investigate.

The magistrate agreed with her in his sentencing remarks. He pointed out that the time span between Lewis’s first court appearance and her guilty pleas was her responsibility. He also revealed that the delay in receiving reports was to an extent Lewis’s fault because she did not attend a number of appointments. “The delay not attributable to the defendant is not unusual,” he stated.

As to other personal considerations, the magistrate said there was no evidence of coercion or exploitation that was exceptional. Financial pressure, being the sole breadwinner and being in a difficult relationship are issues many individuals must deal with, he remarked.

Lewis admitted in her social inquiry report that she had taken “the stupidest route” in dealing with her relationship and she should have spoken up and asked for help.

The magistrate reviewed other factors to be considered in breach of trust cases, including effect on the victim and co-workers. He pointed out that in many cases the loss is more than financial. In this case, the employer had declined to file a victim impact statement, but Lewis said her fellow employees had been “crushed” when they learned what she had done.

The magistrate noted that she did not apologize to her victims for fear of rejection, but she did apologize in open court. She did not try to shift the blame to anyone else and that was a significant factor in her favor.

She will face increased hardship as a result of this conviction and term of imprisonment, but these are the normal consequences of this type of crime, he pointed out.

A custodial sentence was necessary to protect the public from like-minded individuals who may be inclined to commit similar offenses, he explained.

There was no prospect that compensation could be paid in a timely manner, the magistrate concluded, but the victim company has its remedy in the civil court.

For charges of possessing and consuming ganja, he imposed a term of one month imprisonment to be served concurrently.