Former Power and Water (PWC) employee Cedric Suradi has pled guilty in Darwin local court this week to a single charge of interfering with his home electrical meter between 2002 and 2023 for cheaper power bills.
Defence barrister Michael Drury negotiated the plea deal for his client, with dishonesty and stealing charges being withdrawn by the crown.
Prosecutor Ruby Preece read through the agreed facts on the case: "On 25th January 2023 a contractor on behalf of PWC attended the residence to replace a mechanical electricity meter with an electronic smart meter.
"On attending the residence, the contractor opened the meter panel, and observed several magnets situated below the meter stacked upon a plastic box. The magnets were situated in such a way that they hindered the rotation of the mechanical meter, causing the meter to read inaccurately.
"The contractor reported the meter tampering, and internal PWC investigations commenced. As part of these investigations a revenue protection officer at PWC undertook investigations using historical data that was available from 2002 to January 2023.
"These investigations revealed the defendant had unlawfully utilised electricity over some time, causing PWC to lose revenue. The defendant has agreed to pay $4,000 in restitution to PWC.
"The defendant did not have proper authority to interfere with the meter and the subsequent measuring of the consumption of electricity supplied by PWC."
Defence barrister Drury said his client "accepts the plea of guilty, however the context in which this offending occurred is twofold your honour.
"Firstly your honour, he instructs he was sufffering extreme financial hardship due to other factors in his life at the time.
"This is no excuse, your honour. He recognises that. But it is, in my submission, contextual. Secondly.."
Judge Alan Woodcock: "Sorry. That's just about meaningless. What do you mean by that. Are you going to tell me how or what or why?
Barrister Drury: "Your honour, there are factors that I can't go into.
Judge Woodcock: "That's ok. Alright. Thank you."
Barrister Drury: "Your honour, secondly. There have been ongoing tensions with my client and Power and Water at high levels your honour; at senior management and executive levels your honour."
"He had a long-term role. 12 years with the union. And on that basis, he often clashed with management. There was ongoing tensions in relation to that your honour. Again, this is not mitigatory, but gives some context into the extreme pressure he was under."
Judge Woodcock: "He's used his knowledge to do this. Special knowledge."
Barrister Drury: "Your honour, this is not an extremely technical bypass or anything like that.."
Judge Woodcock: "Not if you know what you're doing. He knows what he's doing."
Barrister Drury: "And we concede that your honour."
Judge Woodcock: "I don't think he can avoid a term of imprisonment. I'm happy to hear submissions on suspension."
Barrister Drury: "Well, your honour, he's a 53-year-old man. He's born and bred in the NT. Married for 25 years. The loving father of two children. Supports those children financially and emotionally your honour.."
Judge Woodcock: "I had hoped he'd take it before someone else. It's not an RP to disqualify myself per-say. He's well known in the community as a decent and good man."
Barrister Drury: "He is, he is your honour. He is a good man. And your honour, I would like to go through some of these [inaudible], just to do due diligence on his behalf your honour.
"He is a good man. He is a working man your honour. He's an [inaudible] to his society. He had 13 years at Power and Water, before that 12 years at Northern Power Services, as a linesman, as the facts do reflect.
"In my submission he did lose his position at Power and Water due to this offending. I would ask your honour to take that into account, on an extra-curial punishment basis."
Judge Woodcock: "As a matter of weight, if you do this sort of thing to your employer, that's what's going to happen."
Barrister Drury: "And that's conceded your honour. And I would stand by that submission that it is somewhat extra-curial. It is for this court to punish him. Your honour can see strong references. Your honour has also referred to he's well known in the community."
Judge Woodcock: "It's a lifetime of contributions by a community-minded man. And it's ongoing."
Barrister Drury: "This is a man who is a life member of Brothers Rugby League Club. This is a man that has coached reserve grade for five years. He gives his time over and over again over the years, off his own back."
Judge Woodcock: "He's been doing it for decades."
Barrister Drury: "He has. And that will continue your honour. I've been somewhat thrown your honour in relation to your honour's position."
Judge: "It's a preliminary view. Of course everything is on the table. Looking at it at first glance, it's a betrayal of trust."
Barrister Drury: "It's conceded, and he doesn't resile from that. Your honour, we ask for no conviction on this matter."
"Your honour he is a good man. He comes before this court, having not been before this court in 20 years.
"Your honour can see a reference from his boss where he's currently working. [company] has offered him advancement in his career. He's good value with 25 years in the industry.
"There's a reference there saying that a conviction would hamper his chances of moving forward in that company. Utlimately, we're asking your honour to exercise your discretion in his favour.
"A good man. A contributing man to the community. A donator of his own time your honour.
"We say this is an aberration. Everything you say we accept. This is a breach of trust. We don't resile from that, but we are asking for a chance for this man not to be convicted. To allow his good work he's done for 30 years in this community to continue.
"And in my submission, if it would hamper his employment prospects, we're asking your honour to exercise that discretion; to give him a chance to go on with his life, and to continue to contribute, and not be hampered by a conviction, in my submission, which would genuinely hamper his prospects of promotion.
"And then if he were to leave [company] your honour; a conviction of this nature would also hamper future employment and would negatively affect the skills he offers to his workplace your honour."
After barrister Drury's conclusion of his submissions for the defence, judge Woodcock turned to crown prosecutor Preece for her submissions on sentencing.
Judge Woodcock: "This is a man of exemplary character. Potentially, including the date and relevant nature of the history; he's got no relevant history. He's got no history at all in terms of sentencing today."
Prosecutor Preece: "If I may address your honour; I think the contention lies largely between parties regarding recording of a conviction or not."
Judge Woodcock: "In terms of the substantive sentence, what do you [inaudible]?"
Prosecutor Preece: "Your honour I say that a community corrections order would not be out of range, if it was paired with a conviction your honour.
"And I'd say that a conviction should follow to give affect to the sentencing factors your honour would have regard to; namely denunciation and punishment.
"Your honour has highlighted that this is a situation of a betrayl of trust.
"In my respectful submission this defendant has a higher moral culpability.
"He was an employee of the NT from which he has diverted power from, sometime within a 20-year period.
"Now in relation to why I'd say a conviction should follow; your honour, this is not a young offender. While I concede his priors are dated and not relevant in terms of a dishonesty offence, he's also not the first offender.
"He's been before the court twice and been the subject of two sentencing exercises."
Judge Woodcock: "Minor offending. He's 50 now. He was in his 20s.."
Barrister Drury: "And if your honour would allow, I am instructed that those counts from 2002 stem from his bucks party.
"That doesn't give your honour much. My submisison, in relation to that, is that conduct was also out of character and seen in the context of a massive night. This is the first time this man has been before the court under those circumstances your honour."
Judge Woodcock: "I don't understand how that will assist me, but yes Miss Preece.."
Prosecutor Preece: "Your honour while I say it's important, and I can see those are dated convictions, he nonetheless has convictions on his record.
"Turning to the other factors the court has regard to, in relation to a section 8 non-conviction application. This is not trivial offending. As I've said, he was an employee of the NT from which he stole [inaudible] and power, over a 20-year period."
Judge Woodcock: "Well he's not charged with stealing. He's not charged with a dishonesty offence. He's charged with a technical offence. I think that needs to be [inaudible]."
"Yes your honour, diverting power. In my respectful submission, while my learned friend has made submissions with regards to tensions with PWC and financial hardship, the offending was not committed under extenuating circumstances."
Judge Woodcock: "Aggravated. Aggravated circumstances. Thank you, Ms Preece.."
Prosecutor Preece: "If I can try and address in relation to the submissions to impact on future employment the conviction may have; your honour, I have just seen the character reference.
"The defendant is employed. It appears as though his current employer is aware a conviction may follow.
"And while it may hamper a promotion, there is no evidence before then court that it will lead to a loss of his employment.
"The court will be aware that both submissions in regards to impact on employment when a conviction is made; the onus is on the defendent to prove on the balance of probabilities, as regards to that impact; the court is always aware in sentencing exercises that a conviction may have some form of impact on employment.
"My first submission is that there is no evidence as to loss of employment stemming from a conviction. Secondly, even if the court accepted there is a specific matter that gives rise to the tension between the public interest of recording a conviction and the benefit to the offender of not recording a conviction.
"For the reasons I've spoke to; particularly to the defendants moral culpability, the public interest lies in recording a conviction.
"Unless I can assist further, those are my submissions."
Judge Woodcock: "Alright Mr Suradi has pleaded guilty. He was born in 1971. He's essentially a man of, given the discussion, no relevant history.
"He's a man who's has lived and continues to live a lifetime of contribution to the community.
"Community minded. Thinks of others before himself. [inaudible sentences]. You submit the consumption of electricity occurs against the background of [inaudible] things.
"That significantly aggravates the offending. It's an early plea. It's hard to detect. I think the community has a real interest in [inaudible].
"I'm satisfied by council that a proper punishment is a community corrections order. [inaudible] I am convinced that a conviction should be recorded in all the circumstances, notwithstanding his prior character [inaudible] and ongoing."
Suradi was given a 12-month good behaviour bond, with $4,000 in restitution to Power and Water.
We are The Mango Inquirer.
