A 24-year-old Georgetown Magistrates’ Court cashier, who was on the run for over a year for allegedly stealing from the court’s Maintenance Department, was on Monday convicted by Magistrate Judy Latchman.

Tiffany Peters was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment for the offence, particulars of which said that during the period February 7, 2012 – September 11, 2012, in Georgetown, being employed as a clerk at the court, she stole $3,045,000, property of the State of Guyana.
The matter was first called before Magistrate Faith McGusty, but was then transferred to Chief Magistrate Priya Sewnarine-Beharry. Subsequently it was finally transferred to Magistrate Latchman for trial.
Police Prosecutor Seon Blackman told the Court on the first court appearance that Peters was employed as a cashier in the court’s maintenance section; her duties entailed writing up maintenance/affiliation cards and cash composition books, as well as collecting cash from persons paying monies.
Blackman told the court that during the period mentioned in the charge, Peters made changes to receipts and records and stole the afore-mentioned sum of cash from her employer.
He said that from the time the offence occurred, the defendant went on the run and acting on information, the police set up a sting operation which eventually led to her arrest.
The prosecution had objected to bail on that appearance, on account of the sum of money involved and stated that, the fact that Peters had been on the run for such a long time indicates that she is a flight risk who, if granted bail, will not return to court.
However, her attorney-at-law Mr. Adrian Thompson managed to secure her bail.
Representing the prosecution was Police Sergeant Vishnu Hunt. A number of witnesses inclusive of clerks, a supervisor and the principal clerk of court were called to testify on behalf of the prosecution.
Peters was informed by Magistrate Latchman that a prima facie case had been established against her and she chose to lead a defence and gave unsworn statements Friday last.
The defendant said, “Madam, no handwriting assessment was taken from me. No document was presented in court where I made a mistake while being a cashier to compare whether the initials are same or look like or totally different.”
She noted that she is not the last person to hold the cash on a day- to- day basis and also she found it relevant to say the she is not the first person to handle the cash everyday.
Peters further told the court that when she finished with the cash and documents in the afternoon, she would hand same over to the supervisor to verify that all is correct and corresponds. If these documents are correct, the supervisor would sign off each of the documents, indicating that they were correct; otherwise he would have brought it to her attention.
The defendant said that after the supervisor had finished signing up the cash and documents, the cash is then placed in a sealed envelope in the presence of the cashier and the supervisor to be taken to the High Court, where it would be lodged overnight. She emphasised that the supervisor would carry the cash to the Supreme Court.
However, she said that she does not deal with the cash that is returned the following morning; it goes to the banking clerk who deals with it, plus any documents pertaining to banking.
She explained her task: after collecting the cash, she would then issue receipts to the person lodging. She said that while she was a cashier, nobody ever came to her to query or complain that they had paid her a specific amount of cash and received a different amount.
Peters also told the court that she does not write on the affiliation and maintenance cards. She added that when she is sick or absent from work, someone else would be subsituted for her. And she went on mentioning some of the names of persons that would work for her.
The convict said that she could not recall working at any specific time when $400,000 was paid to the collecting office.
The defence submitted that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendant, saying that the prosecution’s case was tenuous.
On Monday, the prosecution told the court that after the supervisor had checked off, the defendant made changes.
After considering the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from contemplating and or perpetrating such an offence, Magistrate Latchman handed down the sentence.
Defence counsel gave notice of his intention to appeal.

(By Geeta Rampersaud)