Lawyer: Jail thief

“She didn’t just steal jewellery. She stole leather goods. She stole handbags and I have not got back anything,” said complainant, King’s Counsel and former senator, Monique Taitt.

“So I’m asking that she be incarcerated for coming into my space, breaching my trust and taking away my property,” Taitt declared.

Kellman, of Chance Hall, St Lucy, was in the No. 4 Supreme Court yesterday, where she had previously pleaded guilty to stealing three pendants, worth $6 100, two chains valued at $1 500, six rings worth $20 000, three bracelets valued $5 720, a bangle worth $4 000, a piece of gold valued at $350, total value $44 470, belonging to Taitt, between August 1, and October 31, 2014.

Senior State Counsel Paul Prescod prosecuted the matter, while Kellman was represented by attorney Shamar Bovell.

Taitt, who was giving her victim impact statement, admitted the convicted woman was, initially in a “disadvantageous financial position” when she started to work for her.

Taitt explained she had hired the woman in August, 2014, but fired her mid-September that same year.

“Her financial situation started to improve because she started to steal from me,” Taitt told the court.

Saw receipts

The long-standing attorney said she subsequently saw receipts, with Kellman’s name, address, identification card and signature, saying that she was authorised to sell the items she had stolen.

When asked to consider how much money in compensation she would be willing to take, Taitt replied her stolen jewellery could be considered priceless since some of it was handed down from her parents.

“This happened 12 years ago, so she owes me interest,” Taitt declared.

She revealed even though she had the items insured, she was not compensated by her insurance company because “my jewellery was treated as part of my household effects”.

“It was a general policy and not a risk policy because people don’t come in at me and t’ief. I have security so they can’t get in and t’ief. I’m not saying steal, cause she t’ief,” she said adding: “What they (the insurance company) at the time were trying to offer me, the figure was unacceptable.

“So the other thing the convicted woman caused was me to fire my insurance company because they refused to compensate me for my jewellery.”

Up to judge

The senior counsel then said she would be leaving any issue of compensation to the judge.

“I am not the one to tell you anything ’cause I am starting at $100 000 ’cause if you put in interest, and that has nothing to do with sentimentality, I am at $100 000 ’cause we’re talking about jewellery and leather goods,” Taitt said.

“So I am not the one to help you with that,” the complainant repeated.

Taitt further told the court a jeweller “was approached” and had determined that the stolen property “was irreplaceable because of the nature and the quality”.

“And any replica would simply be that, a replica. So seriously, my jewellery was priceless.”

Justice Laurie-Ann Smith-Bovell then noted the court would be taking into account all the mitigating factors relating to the convicted woman.

“I know that you are the victim. I know that you are affronted by what you think is the behaviour of the now convicted woman in a situation where you are of the view that you were assisting her and helping her,” the judge told Taitt.

“But in sentencing, the court also has to take into account the rehabilitative aspect of sentencing. This is a now convicted woman who has no previous convictions, no subsequent convictions. I am sure you are well aware of what the Penal System Reform Act says with respect to a custodial sentence being a last resort where there are other avenues,” the judge noted.

“Clearly, she cannot fully compensate you for the value of your missing possession because you cannot compensate for sentimentality,” the judge added.

In the end, the judge adjourned the matter until next Friday when she will sentence Kellman. (HLE)