A 64-year-old Pembroke man who admits stealing Royal Gazette newspapers from a vending machine was in Plea Court yesterday where the magistrate criticised the media company’s tactics to catch the culprit.

Police accused Frederick Tucker of paying 75 cents for one newspaper, but taking five out of the machine when it opened.

It happened on December 23, 2006 outside The Royal Gazette Building on Par-la-Ville Road in Hamilton.

Crown counsel Cindy Clarke explained the newspaper’s managers, which had fallen victim to the crime before, hired a security firm and installed a surveillance camera in an effort to catch the culprit.

Senior Magistrate Archie Warner remarked: “Rather than have a security firm on this it’s far easier to put in the proper system. In most countries you put the money in and one comes out.”

He paused for a moment to write something down and then said: “Bermuda is another world.”

Royal Gazette Editor-in-Chief William Zuill explained after the court proceeding that a surveillance camera was a practical move for the company because the only alternative was having someone watch the box 24 hours a day.

He said: “They (the vending machines) need to be operated on a honour system and we need to make sure people are not going in and taking multiple copies when they've only paid for one.”

The total value of the theft in this case was $3.75. Newspapers at the Par-la-Ville vending machine are 75 cents even though retail outlets sell it for five cents more.

When asked why such effort was taken to protect property of such a small value Mr. Zuill said: “The problem with the value of the paper is that although one copy costs 75 cents in those particular machines, if you multiply that by ten or 20 a day over three or four weeks, you’re talking about a pretty substantial loss.

“In addition to that it is an inconvenience to other people who may wish to go get a paper from the machine and it’s not there.

“So we take this very seriously.”

Mr. Tucker was handed a conditional discharge which means his guilty plea and conviction will not show up on his record if he remains out of trouble for 12 months.

Mr. Warner said he ruled conditional discharge because the defendant was of an advanced age and had no criminal record. He also was lenient because the stolen property carried a small value and was ultimately recovered by Police.

The long serving Magistrate also openly questioned the validity of the charge in the first place.

Mr. Warner said: “Is this theft?

“It seems pretty dumb to me. You can put 75 cents and take as many as you want?

“It’s an honour system, I know, but is it theft?”

Ms Clarke responded: “He had a guilty intent and took more than he paid for. Just as if you took more than you paid for off a shelf in the grocery store.”

Mr. Warner concluded: “I’m not saying it’s not criminal, but is it theft under the criminal code?”

The conversation between the Crown and the magistrate was not germane to the case because the defendant had already pleaded guilty and agreed to accept whatever punishment was dealt to him.