Denys Roberts CJ:

The defendant, Rokiah bte Suhaili, also known as Rose Ting, faces two charges under s. 408 of the Penal Code.

In both it is alleged that as a senior teacher at the Nuse Laila Puteri School in Berakas, she collected large sums of money by way of school fees and committed a criminal breach of trust in relation to them.

These amounted to $81,740 in 1987 and $44,750 between 1 January and 30 September 1988. She pleaded not guilty to both charges and maintained her innocence of them.

The offences were not discovered until 1988, when the branch at Berakas was visited by Puan Sharifah bte Syed Ibrahim, who is the principal of the main school in Bandar Seri Begawan and has been for 15 years, as the result of what her accountant had found.

A branch of the school was opened in 1980 at Berakas and the defendant, a teacher there, was engaged in about 1985 on terms which are set out in a letter of appointment subsequently signed by her in February 1987.

This letter appointed her as a teacher in charge of that branch school, with various duties set out in the letter. Among these is the task of collecting school fees and remitting them promptly.

I am satisfied that the defendant was a clerk or servant, entrusted with the school fees which were paid to her for attendance at that school, and were to be transmitted by her to the head office at Bandar Seri Begawan. The prosecution, on whom lies the burden of proof throughout, must prove that the defendant committed a criminal breach of trust by converting or dishonestly using part of those fees for her own purposes.

In 1988, the principal of the main school appointed an accountant who checked the accounts at the head office, which had not been done before. She found that many of the payments, which had been entered in the head office book, had no receipt to support them.

The book showing the fees paid to any branch of the school was kept in the head office. A similar book was kept in each branch school, showing the fees which had been received there in relation to each pupil in that branch.

Those who were responsible at each branch for maintaining the books, also had access to the branch's book that was kept at the head office. They came into the head office about once a week and made entries in the head office book, by copying from the branch office book into the head office book.

Payments of fees received at one of the branch schools could be passed to the main school in one of three ways. Firstly, by collection of the fees by the principal herself, who visited each branch school from time to time. Secondly, by the branch handing the money to the principal about once a week when the branch teacher went to make entries in the main book kept at headquarters. Thirdly, by the branch school handing sums of money to a driver employed by the school for delivery to the head office.

We heard evidence from the accountant who had examined the books of the school. She can only say that many of the entries which were made in the Berakas School book and in the office book were not supported by any proper receipts. The amount of the deficiency which she found was that which is alleged in the charges, namely $81,740 for 1987 and $44,750 from January to September 1988.

She cannot herself say, and she did not purport to do so, how much money the school had actually received but only that there were unsupported entries. It is however clear, and I find this as a fact, that the amount of money collected by the Berakas branch, and entered in the branch and head office books, did not agree with the receipts which were forwarded by it to head office, in support of the money that went there.

If there had been any discrepancy, between the money received at head office and the receipts tendered by the branch, the head office would have noticed this and enquired of the branch as to what had happened.

The principal visited the Berakas branch on 29 August 1988. While the defendant was upstairs, t