By George Barclay
SINCE 1971, the Guyana Court of Appeal, led by Chancellor Edward Luckhoo, noted that judges in Guyana were imposing inadequate sentences against offenders of serious fraud cases and called for stiffer penalties to be imposed on such offenders.

Current cases show that the situation has not changed considerably from what it had been in 1971.

In 1971, Chancellor Edward Luckhoo and Justices of Appeal Guya Persaud and Victor Crane made the above comments at the hearing of an application by a postmaster who was convicted and sentenced for fraud.

In his application, the postmaster was seeking an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The Appellate Court held there was no merit in the appeal, as the evidence had clearly proved the applicant guilty of the offence and the summing up by the judge was fair.

The facts of the case disclosed that 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 from time to time from the General Post Office.

The evidence was clear that the stamps had been received by the applicant and taken into stock by him. He did not sign the two orders for the stamps and did not return them to the General Post Office as he was requested 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 required to do.
On conviction for falsification of accounts, he made an application to the court for an extension of time within which to appeal.

At the hearing of the application for extension of time within which to appeal, Senior Counsel Mr. Fred Wills appeared for the applicant while Mr. George Pompey, the then Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, represented the State.

Refusing the application, Chancellor Luckhoo, noting the prevalence of the fraud cases, said that he would like to support what had been said by his brothers Persaud and Crane in relation to the matter.

He added, “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 against his sentence and this appeal was 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 offices 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 like at this stage to repeat what I said in a similar case of falsification of accounts – the case of the Queen v. Peter Richard Osborne (Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1968) – in the hope that those responsible for looking after the systems which operate in the various departments of revenue, might exercise a greater vigilance to ensure, as my brother Persaud pointed out, that they are faithfully operated and not be allowed to break down through carelessness of improper motivations. In the case of Osborne, I said these words:

“It does not concern this Court that others, in one way or another, may not have been implicated in the daring fraud. But the observation cannot be resisted that something must have been rotten in the state of safeguarding public funds, in that particular sector, which permitted an ‘unknown’ person who was not a workman and never earned any money, to receive payments week after week for over 40 weeks in one year, sometimes twice above that of the other legitimate workmen, by a process of concoction.

“The net result of this was that over $3, 000 was paid out for a period of less than one year to a non-existent workman. One shudders to think, if there are other instances, to what extent the public coffers may not have been otherwise impoverished!

“Eleven months after this fraud had been in progress, a clerk in charge of the Yard Office of the Ministry, at the commencement of his duties as such, checked to see that the names of persons who actually worked were names of persons which were put on the pay list for payment. He checked the time slips of workers against what was recorded on the pay lists. He was not detailed to do this job, but he felt it should be done and did so. This was what led to the discovery of the particular fraud, and demonstrates that vigilance and honesty of purpose will reveal what indolence and connivance will suppress.

“It is for the authority concerned, and other similar authorities, not only to be satisfied with the system in use, but to use that it is honoured in thought, word and deed, if public funds are not to be scandalously squandered,” Chancellor Luckhoo declared as he agreed with his brothers to refuse the applicant leave to appeal.

The conviction and sentence were affirmed.