Refuse worker kept jewellery he found in recycling bag

David Board decided to keep his find, but his action was discovered later when he sold some of it to a jewellers.

The 70-year-old, of Flat 4, Victoria Terrace, Church Road, St Sampson’s, denied stealing 12 items of jewellery from a woman and committing fraud by false representation at Ray & Scott Jewellers on The Bridge by saying that the jewellery was his.

Prosecuting officer Marc Davies told the Magistrate’s Court how the defendant had applied the not entirely legal maxim of ‘finders keepers’.

The court heard that the owner kept the jewellery in a pink Radley bag in either the study at her home or in the shredder. In April last year she realised it was missing and recalled last seeing it in August 2018.

On 9 February the defendant took three bags of mainly scrap jewellery including earrings and a pendant to Ray & Scott with a view to selling them. He was asked to go back the following week where, after signing a receipt to say the jewellery was his and having the sale recorded and logged, he was paid £470.

On 19 April the woman, who was a client of Ray & Scott, went to the shop to get a valuation for her missing items with a view to making an insurance claim. A pair of earrings on the list looked like some on sale in the shop. It was established that the earrings in the shop had been bought from the defendant and when other items on his receipt of sale were shown to her the woman recognised them too. On 5 May the shop called the woman to say they thought the jewellery was hers.

Police went to the defendant’s home. Under caution, he denied stealing anything. He directed officers to a chest of drawers in which they found the pink bag containing jewellery including three bracelets, an Omega ladies watch and a ring. He said he worked at Mayside and that the pink Radley bag had fallen out of a bag of paper when he had torn it open.

His initial reaction had been ‘wow!’

Ray & Scott Jewellers partner Jeffrey Fox told the court how he had completed the deal with the defendant at the shop on 9 February. He thought that he recognised the man. He had asked him if he worked at the tip but could not recall whether his question was answered. When he asked where the jewellery had come from, the defendant had told him that he had been clearing out his wife’s jewellery box. About 10% of the box was good-quality jewellery while the rest was scrap.

Mr Fox said his shop did few deals of this type and kept details, records and photographs of things when they did. The loser of the items had been distressed when she had come to the shop on 19 April.

The defendant said in interview that he could not believe what he was seeing when he opened the pink bag but, at the time, Mayside had no rules on whether things of high value had to be handed in. That had since changed.

He told the court that when seeing the jewellery he had estimated its value to be between £5,000 and £10,000. He had put it in his pocket and had not told any of his colleagues because they would have wanted him to share it with them. He thought about telling police but feared that they would only start asking awkward questions.

He believed the items could have been dumped and maybe someone had passed away. He had sold what he did to the jewellers because he was short of money and said he kept the rest because he liked looking at it. He could not remember telling Mr Fox that he had been clearing out his wife’s jewellery box. He was not married, having been divorced in the 1980s.

Judge Graeme McKerrell said if the jewellery was being dumped, why had it not been put in a black bag with general waste?

‘I’ve wondered that myself,’ said the defendant.

The defendant had said he liked looking at what he had kept, but Judge McKerrell said it was clear that it was all women’s jewellery.

He found the defendant had made the comment about his wife’s jewellery box to Mr Fox as a point of fact.

He was prepared to accept that the defendant had hoped the jewellery had been dumped but that was not enough and he found him guilty of both offences.

This was a case of theft in the workplace and as such he would require a probation report prior to sentencing. Board will be sentenced next month and he was bailed unconditionally until then.