A mother accused of stealing from the Gilbert Institute after-school programme was defensive, according to the school's principal when asked to explain what happened to the money, a court heard yesterday.

Lee Brown's child was graduating from the school in June 2005 and two teachers offered to run the programme.

The after-school programme was started in 2000 by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) to look after children between 3.30 p.m. and 5.45 p.m. until their parents could pick them up.

The two teachers approached, Eunice Jones, Principal of Gilbert Institute and ex-officio of the PTA with concerns after their initial reviews of the after-school accounts.

Ms Jones told Supreme Court yesterday that after she reviewed the ledger and the receipt book she asked to meet with Brown and Brenda Smith the other coordinator of the programme.

At the first meeting with both Brown and Ms Smith, the defendant produced bank statements and a report of income and expenditure she had created.

"We looked at them and the copy of the bank statements and they agreed with the other documents she gave me at the time.

"But I did ask for other documents because there was still the discrepancy between them, the ledger and the receipt book. We got a copy of the statements from the bank," she told the court.

Upon receipt of these copies, Ms. Jones, called a second meeting because the bank-issued statements and those produced by Brown did not match and asked her to produce all documents she had.

Beyond just the totals differing on the two sets of bank statements, the logo and the print on them were different Ms Jones told the court.

But, Ms Jones said, when she began asking Brown to explain where the money had gone she grew defensive.

"During that meeting I found her attitude defensive by her general body language and little eye contact," Ms Jones told the jury.

Brown, 49, took on the leadership of the programme as a voluntary role working alongside other parent volunteers and some paid employees in 2003.

According to the prosecutor, she took possession of the cheque book for the programme's account at the Bank of Bermuda, which was set up to collect fees paid by parents.

She is now facing eight charges spanning from November 2003 to April 2005 in Supreme Court.

One count of theft is related to an allegation that Brown failed to pay $30,893 into the programme's Bank of Bermuda account.

And the second theft charge alleges through forging signatures on cheques, Brown, stole another $12,034.92.

Six forgery charges relate to cheques totalling $6,090 upon which Brown is accused of forging signatures from co-signees. She denies all the charges.

Senior Crown counsel Paula Tyndale claimed she then presented these to pay bills, to the detriment of the programme. Brown, from St. David's, denies the allegations.

Yesterday defence lawyer Larry Scott contended that the meetings held by Ms Jones were "accusatorial" and that his client had actually suggested calling in the Police if there were problems.

Ms Jones denied the meetings had accused his client and were only called to have her explain facts, but confirmed that Brown had brought-up the idea of calling the Police.

The seven women and five men of the jury also heard from Ms Smith about her review of the statements from the bank, from Brown and the cheque book.

Between November 2003 and April 2005, Ms Smith said she calculated almost $19,000 missing from cash that should have been deposited in the after-school's Bank of Bermuda account.

"The conclusion was that the majority of the cheques were being deposited but most of the cash was not on various documents," she told the court.

The case continues today.