6.00PM: Oversight of its only paid staff member and possible complicity in fudging salary figures were canvassed by the defence this afternoon in the opening day of the Pride Centre fraud trial in the Auckland District Court. This morning, under prosecution questioning, the jury heard testimony by long-time Pride Centre stalwart Edward Bennett that the accused, Martin van der Reit, employed as Centre coordinator for eight months from mid 2003, had fraudulently filled out cheques to his own advantage and falsified documents to cover up his theft. Van der Reit faces seventeen charges of fraud and one charge of perverting the course of justice. Bennett, who had managed the Centre until Van der Reit's arrival, stated under lengthy and probing cross-examination by the defense that, as a co-signatory to the Centre's bank account, he had pre-signed cheques although advised not to do so. "Unfortunately I had signed a number of blank cheques since 1999. I had been told it was unwise but kept on doing it." Bennett's level of oversight and presence at the Pride Centre were further explored this afternoon, with Bennett advising that as an unpaid volunteer he visited the pride Centre, most days for an hour or two. Asked if he scrutinised the financial records of the Pride Centre, Bennett responded that "After Martin arrived I was relieved not to have to look at them. I saw no particular reason to go through ringbinders full of statements. The monthly financial reports prepared by the coordinator were all I was required to look at." When it was suggested that he had in fact kept a very close eye on the accounts, Bennett said "that's incorrect." At the heart of evidence presented today is Van der Reit's disputed salary. Bennett says he was employed part time on an annual salary of $19,000, while Van der Reit says he was employed full time at $55,000. Shown a letter which included the higher salary level and which appeared to have Bennet's signature on it, Bennett acknowledged that "yes, it certainly looks like my signature, but there is no way I would have signed that. Bennett told the court that he believed some letters and other documents had been tampered with. To a suggestion by the defense lawyer that he had interfered with the documents himself, Bennett retorted "That is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard." An added complexity was this afternoon introduced to the case by suggestions that, in backing up Van der Reit's application for permanent New Zealand residency after his arrival from South Africa, the Pride Centre may have produced a letter stating that he was employed full time at the higher salary. Bennett dismissed the suggestion as "preposterous and incorrect."
Credit: GayNZ.com News Staff
First published: Monday, 12th November 2007 - 6:12pm