Blenheim worker convicted for stealing from employer

A man who stole almost $30,000 worth of equipment from his Marlborough workplace lost his fight to avoid a conviction but won the battle to keep his name a secret.

The man had sought a discharge without conviction on a representative charge of theft over $1000, but a judge refused the application and instead convicted and sentenced him in the Blenheim District Court to 180 hours of community work.

He was granted permanent name suppression, because of the likely consequences for his wife and her career if he was named.

“You are lucky,” Judge Richard Russell said after lengthy consideration of name suppression, which he said was always a finely balanced argument. He ordered the man to pay $29,264 reparation to cover the cost of the equipment his former employer identified as having been taken.

The defendant had earlier offered to pay the amount, but claimed he had difficulty getting a bank account in which to deposit the funds. The theft involved specialist tools and equipment taken from a Blenheim-based firm between October 2022 and February 2023.

The man had worked there from August 2020 until he resigned and gave notice in January 2023, feeling “undervalued and over worked”.

He took the items in response to the increasing workload he was under, outside the position he was employed to do, defence lawyer Emma Riddell said. She said he had other legal options, such as lodging a grievance in the employment jurisdiction, rather than what he did in the end.

After he handed in his notice and started packing up tools, a discussion over the items “turned nasty”.

Lines became blurred as to what belonged to him, having paid regularly into a tool account, and what belonged to the company, the court heard. The man had initially pleaded not guilty but changed his plea in March this year.

“This is a situation where he has faced up to what he has done, along with entering a guilty plea,” Riddell said. She was concerned that a conviction could harm his ability to function as a director of the company he ran, through potential complications with registration from the relevant trade certifier.

But Judge Russell said it was not the court’s role to shield trades organisations from being aware of what had occurred.

He said the list of items taken should have been clearly identified as to whom they belonged, and that a personal grievance might well have been a better path to follow.

However, the court had to deal with the charges to which he had admitted.
The police, who opposed a discharge without conviction and continued name suppression, said the theft was not a one-off situation, but went on for some time and involved items of considerable value.

The police also said the theft was a significant breach of trust, resulting in not only financial loss for the company but reputational harm.

Judge Russell noted comments made in a victim impact statement by senior figures in the firm that the deception had caused “profound personal distress” and had been felt widely by all staff.

Judge Russell noted comments by the firm’s senior leadership in their victim impacts statements that the deception had caused “profound personal distress” and had been felt widely by all staff.