Former inspector stole electricity

A former electrical inspector received a suspended sentence and was ordered to pay compensation of $138,395.75 after he pleaded guilty to abstracting electricity from the Caribbean Utilities Company distribution system between September 2007 and March 2014. 

The maximum penalty is a fine of $2,000 and imprisonment for two years. 

Magistrate Kirsty-Ann Gunn pointed out that abstracting electricity is akin to theft because the defendant was appropriating a service he was not entitled to. 

Crown counsel Laura Manson said Neville Antonio Faulknor, 46, was the owner of a George Town premises where he lived with his family and two sets of tenants. He had not paid CUC since September 2007, other than an equipment rental of $6 per month. 

Ms. Manson said he had apparently directed power from a street utility pole to his home, bypassing the CUC meter. The situation was discovered in December 2013, when an electronic system that reads meters failed to pick up a signal from that address. Inspection showed that the meter had been tampered with. 

CUC employees cut off the power, but in March, 2014, it was seen that power was still being supplied. CUC employees visited the premises, found anomalies with a second meter and disconnected it. Ms. Manson said this should have stopped the power to the premises, but power was still being supplied. 

It was then discovered that power from the utility pole was going directly to the house rather than through a CUC meter. Employees found wires underneath the ground and the wires led to the house.  

When officials confronted him, Faulknor immediately admitted what he had done. He said he had been having difficulties including mental health issues and had been under a lot of stress, but was now seeing a doctor. 

Attorney Dennis Brady told the court his client accepted the facts put forward by Ms. Manson and was not offering any fanciful defense or argument as to his state of mind. If not for mental health challenges, Faulknor would not have embarked on this course of conduct, he said. 

“Prior to this event he had no history of dishonesty. He finds the events inexplicable,” Mr. Brady elaborated. 

Financial difficulties led to stress that, coupled with other challenges, led to the decision to embark on this offending, the attorney summarized. Faulknor had the skills and “voices” told him he could do this to relieve the pressure. 

The magistrate quoted from a medical report that said Faulknor saw a doctor in April 2008 and said then that he was not thinking properly when he started the offense. By his own admission at that time, he was able to appreciate that he should not have abstracted electricity as he had. “But he continued to do it,” she emphasized, and he was worried that his bills would go back up to $2,000 a month.  

For that reason, she denied a request that a conviction not be recorded against the defendant. However, she accepted the illness for which he was being treated as a factor to be considered, along with the effect imprisonment was likely to have on his health. She therefore imposed a term of 14 months, but suspended it for two years. 

The magistrate asked about a compensation order. Mr. Brady said his client was willing to pay the money back. He had been a qualified electrical inspector, employed by government. As a result of this offense he was let go; he had found a job and now worked for less income. He and his wife had tried to get a loan to pay off the debt, but they were not successful. In his present situation, Faulknor could pay $1,000 per month. 

The magistrate noted that, at that rate, it would take over 11 years to pay the amount owed. 

Mr. Brady said the defendant hoped to settle the debt much sooner by seeking additional employment and continuing efforts to get a loan.  

The magistrate made the compensation order for $138,395.75 or six months in default, giving Faulknor an initial period of two years to pay. If the sum is not paid, he will have to come back to court and apply for an extension of time, she said. 

As in another recent case, the magistrate pointed out that abstracting electricity is not a victim-less crime because the loss will be passed on to the company’s paying customers. The more people who commit this type of offense, the harder the impact will be on the whole community, she observed. That was why the sentence had to be a deterrent as well as a punishment.