A former Corporation of Hamilton worker who admitted taking a bribe to help someone escape a parking ticket was fined $6,500 yesterday.

Paula Thomas, 65, admitted agreeing to accept “lunch and a drink” from Cassandra Trott in exchange for not inputting her parking ticket into a monitoring system when she appeared in Magistrates’ Court last December.

Thomas, from Smith’s, also admitted not issuing Trott a summons “in anticipation of” being offered another reward — as well as lying about the status of a parking ticket to benefit Aneika Francis.

Magistrate Craig Attridge said that, while Trott had been dealt with by way of a conditional discharge, such a course was not appropriate for Thomas because she was the one who committed the breach of trust.

However, Mr Attridge ultimately found that the offence did not cross the custody threshold and that a fine would be appropriate.

The court heard Thomas committed the offences between July 2019 and January 2022, when she was working for the Corporation of Hamilton.

A city spokeswoman said in April 2023 that Thomas was “placed on administrative leave” while her case went through the courts.

It was confirmed yesterday that she was no longer an employee with the Corporation.

Prosecutor Daniel Kitson-Walters said this month that Thomas committed the offences while in a “position of significant trust and responsibility” and suggested a fine of between $5,000 and $6,500.

However, Charles Richardson, Thomas’s lawyer, said his client received “no financial gains whatsoever” by committing the offences and requested a conditional discharge.

While Mr Richardson also raised concerns about Thomas’s ability to pay fines as a pensioner, Mr Attridge said means testing had shown that she could handle fines in the levels proposed.

He also cited a statement in support of Thomas suggesting that offences of this nature were rife but that the defendant just happened to get caught.

Mr Attridge said the comment did not offer Thomas an excuse, but highlighted a perception among the public that such offences were commonplace.

“While a conditional discharge would clearly be in the best interest of the defendant, the public interest is better served not by the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence, but by a conviction and a fine,” Mr Attridge said.

He fined Thomas a total of $6,500 for the three offences and ordered that she pay the fines by the end of June.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers