Lawyers make final arguments in theft trial

A woman who allegedly stole more than $ 5,000 from her bosses at a Charlottetown hair salon told a version of events that couldn’t possibly have happened, says the Crown attorney in her case.

Shelly Annette Taylor appeared before Chief Judge John Douglas in provincial court Wednesday for closing arguments in her trial on charges of fraud, theft and uttering forged documents.

Taylor had a previous conviction for stealing more than $ 190,000 from the Montague Credit Union.

During his submissions, Crown attorney John McMillan said Taylor’s evidence differed from that of the salon’s four owners.

“This case is about credibility and believability,” he said.

Taylor allegedly stole more than $ 5,000 from Urban Rootz Hair Studio while she worked there as a receptionist and bookkeeper.

McMillan said Taylor overpaid herself, wrote cheques to herself and transferred money from one of the business’s accounts that she wasn’t supposed to.

There were also issues related to cash that wasn’t deposited and mileage claims she made, he said.

“Every cheque Shelly Taylor wrote to herself she was not entitled to.”

McMillan said Taylor explained the transfer from the bank account as a mistake.

But it was a mistake she didn’t tell her employers about and the transaction wasn’t reversed, he said.

McMillan said all the evidence showed that Taylor was not credible.

Taylor’s lawyer, Brendan Hubley, said she didn’t have signing authority on any cheques and her employers had to sign each of her paycheques.

Hubley said there were inconsistencies among the business partners as to how any cash was handled or tracked.

When it came to the mileage issue, Hubley said everything was recorded in the business’s accounting software, which was transparent and accessible by everyone in the office.

Hubley said the evidence doesn’t support theft, fraud or forgery.

There may be evidence that would support a civil case, but it didn’t support any criminal charges, he said.

After hearing the submissions, Douglas said he didn’t know how long it would take him to review the evidence and he adjourned the case until Oct. 17 to fix a date for his decision.