POSTMASTER Jabez Carlton Mc Rae, who was convicted and sentenced for falsification of accounts in 1971, was denied an extension of time to appeal out of time.The Court of Appeal headed by Chancellor E. V. Luckhoo, rejected the application on the ground that there was no merit in the appeal.

The case for the State was that the applicant, a postmaster, had falsified certain accounts being a record of stamps which he, as postmaster had received periodically from the General Post Office. The evidence was clear that the stamps had been received by the applicant and taken into stock by him. But he did not sign the two orders for the stamps and did not return them to the General Post Office as he was required to do.
When his books were checked it was found that the entries relating to the two quantities of stamps had not been made by him as he was requested to do. On conviction and sentence for falsification of accounts he made an application to the court for an extension of time within which to appeal.
The Appellate Court held that there was no merit in the appeal as the evidence had clearly proved the applicant guilty of the offence and the summing up was fair.The application for extension of time was refused.
Application for extension of time within which to appeal refused
F.R Wills S.C appeared for the applicant while
G.A. G. Pompey, Deputy Director of Public Prosecution represented the State.
Chancellor Luckhoo said: “I, too would like to support what has been said by my brothers Persaud and Crane.”
“It has become all too evident from the cases of reported fraud, especially within relatively recent times that its prevalence calls for serious attention.”
“Too many people seem to be on the look out to dip their hands in the public coffers and line their pockets with ill-gotten gains. This disposition to get rich quickly is a plague on our young nation, which should be provided with a better example on the part of those who, like the appellant , occupy positions of trust.”
“As my brother Crane has pointed out , the sum involved is not an insignificant one.” “In two transactions alone, it was sought to create a loss to this country of over $10, 000.” This is shocking and disgraceful in my view. On the facts, the plan was not only daring, but revealed a certain measure of disquieting neglect in the operation of the system employed.”
“What my brother Crane has said on the question of punishment should be noted by judges who have to deal with situations of this kind. Clemency could be sometimes misplaced by the imposition of inadequate sentences in cases of serious fraud. If the appellant had appealed his sentence against and his appeal is properly before the court ,I might on the facts before me (and subject to what was said}, have found it difficult to restrain myself from increasing the sentence, for not only is the offence of a heinous nature, but the prevalence of such like offences involving public officers and servants in a position of trust is not a matter to be lightly glossed over. And moreover, the device used indicated a great deal of premeditation.”
“I would agree with the Order proposed by my brother Persaud and in the result leave to appeal will be refused and the conviction and sentence affirmed.”
Justice of Appeal Guya Persaud in his judgment said: “This court has for some time now, viewed with a great deal of alarm the number of convictions and accusations made against public officers of fraud committed in the course of their employment. This court – and we are sure others will agree with us – is of opinion that the State is entitled to expect honest and conscientious service from its employees, and we feel that any employee of the State who is guilty of fraud commits not only a breach of trust against his office or department, as the case may be, but against the entire country; for he is employed in a position of trust, and he is expected to so conduct himself that the State would have implicit faith in him.”
“The way things seem to be moving would indicate that there are less and less people in the public service on whom the State can rely.”
“ We hope this state of affairs can be remedied and public officers, in whatever station they are employed – whether as postmasters, or civil servants, or policemen – will come to appreciate that it is of no avail to them to perpetrate fraud on the country, because they must know that in proper cases courts will see to it that they receive punishment appropriate to their crime.”
“In this case the appellant was a postmaster employed in a certain post office in the country, and very simply the case for the State was that he had falsified certain accounts. The accounts being a record of stamps which he, as postmaster, received from time to time from the General Post Office. These two counts relate to two instances; one where he is said to have received stamps to the value of $2, 220 and the other where he is said to have received stamps to the value of $8, 040 – quite substantial sums of money, in our opinion.”
“In this particular case, there was quite clear evidence that the stamps, subject-matter of these counts on the indictment, had been requisitioned, checked and posted to the appellant. There was some suggestion, rather vague, however, that perhaps these stamps had never arrived at their destination, but the evidence disclosed that there was no doubt that the stamps had arrived. Suffice it to say there was enough evidence on which it was clear that the stamps had been received by the appellant and taken into stock by him.”
“What was not done was that the appellant did not sign the two orders and did not return them to the General Post Office as he was required to do . When his books were checked it was found that the entries relating to these two quantities of stamps had not been made by him as he was required to do, and it was found that as a result of these omissions , he had stamps exceeding $5, 000 in value. But it is clear, as we have indicated in the course of discussion this afternoon, that if he had not accounted for the stamps and this excess remained in his possession, then of course, there was nothing to prevent him putting the proceeds of these stamps in his pocket. That is what the case for the State was.
“He led his defence; the jury read it; the judge in our view gave an admirable summing up to the jury and the jury found him guilty.” “We do not ourselves see any merit in the appeal, and we do not see anything in the evidence or in the summing-up from which he could hope to cull a ground of appeal. In these circumstances the application for an extension of time is refused, the appeal dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed.”

(By George Barclay)