'Stupid' postal worker stockpiled thousands of letters

[TrueBlueTerrier]

'Stupid' postal worker stockpiled thousands of letters and parcels at her home

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Stupid-p ... z2TGfo3DPQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

THOUSANDS of letters and parcels went undelivered in Bristol over the festive period last year after an overworked postie stockpiled them at her home, a court heard.

Investigators found more than 2,000 items of undelivered mail in the home and car of Amy Dark, 24, who struggled to cope with her delivery rounds two months into the job.

As well as piling up mounds of mail at her home in Lawrence Weston, Dark opened 197 parcels and took their contents.

Royal Mail investigators found DVDs, games, perfume and cables in her car, Bristol Crown Court heard.

At Bristol Magistrates' Court last month, Dark, of Kings Weston Avenue, was convicted of stealing 197 postal packages between November 24 last year and January 18, and delaying the delivery of 2,033 items of post between December 1 last year and January 18.

She appeared before Bristol Crown Court yesterday to be sentenced.

Celia Strathdee, prosecuting, said Dark was taken on as a postie working out of Patchway delivery office in October last year and also worked at the Westbury-on-Trym office.

Investigators were called in to monitor Dark after customers complained to Royal Mail that their mail was not being delivered.

When under surveillance on January 18, Dark spent 53 minutes at home during her round and was approached as she left the property.


When a search was carried out, unopened and opened letters dating back to November were found in her vehicle.

Inside her home were 16 delivery pouches and a mail bag along with a total of 1,946 unopened and 115 opened items of mail.

When arrested and interviewed, Dark said the letters had been left too long to be delivered. She said she had opened the mail out of "stupidity and nosiness". Dark admitted the DVDs, games, perfume and cables had come from parcels she had opened.

Dark told officers she had received "the worst" training and had been asked to deliver 12 to 14 bags of mail a day, which was halved after she had complained to her bosses.

She admitted the post found at her home would not have been delivered to its intended recipients.

Defending barrister Sam Jones said his client, who had no previous convictions, had formerly been a dedicated member of staff at BHS before leaving to help care for her cancer-stricken mother.

He said Dark was given four days' training before being left to carry out her new job during the festive period.

Mr Jones said: "She struggled, could not complete her rounds and mail started to pile up. She then took a foolish decision to open the mail."

Judge Martin Picton gave Dark a six-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, and ordered her to complete 150 hours of unpaid work.

[Judgee]

So we can all now steal from our post bags because we can't cope with the work load.... great and who says crime doesn't pay!

[scoobydo79]

Im curios .Would She have been given a lighter sentence if She had not opened any items of mail?

[DGP1]

She was lucky to get 4 days training.

[UnhappyGremlin]

Pretty much went unpunished.
Not the first time someone has either.

The mitigating circumstances used are totally irrelevant to the case. Just a bleeding heart story to get away with what she had done.
Sends the wrong message to everyone.

[RedBagMan]

Surely everyone has a "bleeding heart" mitigation speech up their sleeve ... reckon mine would be "after 25 years' loyal service in the computer industry, he was made redundant - and being in his mid-50s, he has struggled with the major life-change that was imposed on him" ...

Any more for any more ??

[UnhappyGremlin]

Surely everyone has a "bleeding heart" mitigation speech up their sleeve ... reckon mine would be "after 25 years' loyal service in the computer industry, he was made redundant - and being in his mid-50s, he has struggled with the major life-change that was imposed on him" ...

Any more for any more ??

Probably. But that's my point. If the mitigating circumstances were RELATED to the incident, then fair enough(though there is no excuse for stealing etc.), but solicitors will use anything to get people off. I don't think they should be allowed unless they are relevant to the case.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Surely everyone has a "bleeding heart" mitigation speech up their sleeve ... reckon mine would be "after 25 years' loyal service in the computer industry, he was made redundant - and being in his mid-50s, he has struggled with the major life-change that was imposed on him" ...

Any more for any more ??

Probably. But that's my point. If the mitigating circumstances were RELATED to the incident, then fair enough(though there is no excuse for stealing etc.), but solicitors will use anything to get people off. I don't think they should be allowed unless they are relevant to the case.

Its a catch 22 though. Plead no mitigation and your likely to get the full punishment but onlookers/victims will feel its justified. Plead mitigation and your sentence is reduced, but victims and onlookers feel let down. If you stoup as low as to steal then you won't be bothered what anyone thinks and therefore you'll try and get the least punishment possible.

The lawyers themselves don't have much of a choice, they are bound by law to give their clients the best representation possible and part of that is the mitigation, if the don't they run the risk of being disbarred and loosing generous income.

[RedBagMan]

Sure ... not saying it's right - a thief IS a thief ... but as you say the lawyers want to rack up their cash ... and look good ...

[UnhappyGremlin]

Surely everyone has a "bleeding heart" mitigation speech up their sleeve ... reckon mine would be "after 25 years' loyal service in the computer industry, he was made redundant - and being in his mid-50s, he has struggled with the major life-change that was imposed on him" ...

Any more for any more ??

Probably. But that's my point. If the mitigating circumstances were RELATED to the incident, then fair enough(though there is no excuse for stealing etc.), but solicitors will use anything to get people off. I don't think they should be allowed unless they are relevant to the case.

Its a catch 22 though. Plead no mitigation and your likely to get the full punishment but onlookers/victims will feel its justified. Plead mitigation and your sentence is reduced, but victims and onlookers feel let down. If you stoup as low as to steal then you won't be bothered what anyone thinks and therefore you'll try and get the least punishment possible.

The lawyers themselves don't have much of a choice, they are bound by law to give their clients the best representation possible and part of that is the mitigation, if the don't they run the risk of being disbarred and loosing generous income.

I know what you're saying Teebs. Everyone is entitled to the best defence. I merely believe that unless the mitigating circumstances relate to the incident, they should be refused by the Judge/Magistrates. People know right from wrong, they make the choice to steal, and when they are caught they bang on about how they never got a bike when they were 9. Irrelevant.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I know what you're saying Teebs. Everyone is entitled to the best defence. I merely believe that unless the mitigating circumstances relate to the incident, they should be refused by the Judge/Magistrates. People know right from wrong, they make the choice to steal, and when they are caught they bang on about how they never got a bike when they were 9. Irrelevant.

I agree that only those pleas of mitigation that have a relevance should have a bearing on the sentencing, and to be fair thats what the Judges/Magistrates are for, they judge the mitigation and sentence the guilty based on it, and many other factors. I think the public deciding what is and what is relevant would be a dangerous step.

[UnhappyGremlin]

I know what you're saying Teebs. Everyone is entitled to the best defence. I merely believe that unless the mitigating circumstances relate to the incident, they should be refused by the Judge/Magistrates. People know right from wrong, they make the choice to steal, and when they are caught they bang on about how they never got a bike when they were 9. Irrelevant.

I agree that only those pleas of mitigation that have a relevance should have a bearing on the sentencing, and to be fair thats what the Judges/Magistrates are for, they judge the mitigation and sentence the guilty based on it, and many other factors. I think the public deciding what is and what is relevant would be a dangerous step.

But Judges and Magistrates repeatedly accept totally irrelevant and separate mitigation claims from people up for charges. I wouldn't harp on about my past to get out of something, I would only point out that which has occurred in relation to what I'd done.
Whilst a relative being diagnosed/dying from a horrendous illness is a terrible state of affairs, and emotionally traumatic and stressful time will undoubtedly ensue, that does not excuse theft. If you're having troubles then your manager should be informed and as much assistance as possible be given. What you don't do is make a conscious choice to steal, and then cry about it to get away with it when caught.

[dvbuk55]

What I found interesting was the fact that she had spent 53 minutes in her home and was approached on leaving - now it could have been argued that had she spent the 53 minutes delivering as opposed to stacking the mail up and opening it she could conceivably have delivered it or does that negate the mitigating circumstances Considering that a full meal relief is 40 minutes for a full timer and cars should not be used on delivery ...........

[UnhappyGremlin]

It took longer than 53 minutes to stack up the amount of mail she had.
And there are no mitigating circumstances in my view. Nothing can excuse theft of mail in this manner and to this degree.
If I am to believe the claims made, she essentially had a thought process of such and such has happened, I can't cope, sod it, I'll steal mail.
If coping was an issue, then talking it through with the manager is first, if no help is offered or received, then S/L with stress. Stealing? Never.

[dvbuk55]

It took longer than 53 minutes to stack up the amount of mail she had.
And there are no mitigating circumstances in my view. Nothing can excuse theft of mail in this manner and to this degree.
If I am to believe the claims made, she essentially had a thought process of such and such has happened, I can't cope, sod it, I'll steal mail.
If coping was an issue, then talking it through with the manager is first, if no help is offered or received, then S/L with stress. Stealing? Never.

I was assuming that the 53 minutes wasn't an isolated incident and was probably a misplaced element of training. Was the home address on the delivery for example, was it a designated comfort stop. Years ago you couldn't deliver to your own house.....................