A book-keeper was alleged yesterday to have stolen $15,000 from a couple who are themselves facing theft charges that have emerged to total $1.2 million.

Jaymo and Keiva Maronie Durham were initially charged with stealing $300,000 from four elderly clients of Ageing Disability Services over seven years.

They deny the charges and have gone on trial at the Supreme Court before Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe.

Mrs Durham, 44, questioned her husband, Mr Durham, 52, yesterday in an examination-in-chief where she appears in his defence.

The duo are representing themselves in the case where they have been accused of stealing the money between February 23, 2012, and July 31, 2019, along with making and using false statements.

The four alleged victims are Doreen Stevens, Nancy Locke, and Muriel and Loretta Smith.

The court heard that the sums taken from them are $990,500 from Ms Smith, $217,675.94 from Ms Locke and $44,987.90 from the Smiths.

Mrs Durham showed her husband a cheque and asked if the signature was his.

He replied: “It is not.”

She then asked: “I appreciate you are not a handwriting expert, but are you familiar with your wife’s handwriting?”

Mr Durham agreed he was, and when his wife asked if it was her handwriting on the cheque, he responded: “It is not.”

Mrs Durham then asked: “Did you give Ms [Ashley] Landy permission to write the cheque?”

He responded: “I did not — not for any reason.”

Asked if he was aware how much Ms Landy took, Mr Durham stated: “I cannot recall … but from the records it was somewhere around $15,000.”

He had earlier told the court that Ms Landy had been employed by the couple as a book-keeper and kept them “abreast of profits and losses on a quarterly basis”.

Mr Durham added: “She had an adverse employment history. We gave her an opportunity as she had recently been released from her previous employer.”

He told the court: “Ms Landy came to us on one occasion and explained, very emotionally, that she had fallen into difficult financial times.

“Her husband was not working and she had to bear the burden of the family’s financial responsibilities.

“She was also being pursued by her previous landlord. They were being sued by their previous landlord for arrears of rent. The landlord had obtained a judgment against them. So she was in dire financial straits.

“She confessed to us that she had misallocated funds towards some of her expenses.

“As a consequence of this conversation, we decided not to terminate her employment, but suspended her for a period of two weeks.”

Mr Durham added that to help her repay the money, they would deduct money from her salary. However, she left their company and had paid only “a few hundred dollars”.

He said: “We had compassion for Ms Landy’s situation. She was not just an employee, she was a colleague. So we didn’t want to heap more hardship on her.

“It’s one of the situations, can you get blood from a stone?

“I believe our assistant is still in communication with her and I am not sure her employment situation has improved significantly.

“I think she made a couple of insubstantial payments for a few hundred dollars.”

Mrs Durham said: “You decided not to press charges.

“Did you advise anyone else about her conduct?”

Mr Durham replied: “There was another staff member who was aware of it. But we didn’t discuss it with anyone else.”

Questioned about taking “any necessary steps to recover the money”, Mr Durham responded: “We discussed it, but it was complex. We are still considering it.

“We have not ruled out pursuing her for the funds.

“We were disappointed with her actions … our trust was betrayed.”

The trial continues before Mr Justice Wolffe.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case