Worker accused of stealing jeep from 'generous' employer found not guilty of theft

A “linchpin” of the Quirke family’s property empire has had his charge of theft dismissed at Thurles District Court.

Bobby Alley (49) of Ballintemple, Dundrum, Tipperary was charged with stealing an Audi Q7 Jeep from Dublin Pool and Juke Box LTD on an unknown date and from an unknown location contrary to Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

Mr Alley denied that he had stolen the jeep saying that the vehicle had been part of a bonus given to him by Richard Quirke.

A GENEROUS EMPLOYER

Mr Alley told the court that he had been in the employment of Richard Quirke for 12 years.

He began as a landscaper with a background in forestry and horticulture.
From landscaping, Mr Alley went on to develop and manage Richard Quirke’s property portfolio, including his 900-acre estate in Tipperary and a farmstead in Galway.

Mr Alley said he was involved in the design and management of Mr Quirke’s Dublin casino located on the site of the old cinema on O’Connell Street.

Mr Alley told the court that he would also transport Mr Quirke and members of the family around the country, collect rents, help to sell properties and manage subcontractors.

Mr Ally described Mr Quirke as a “generous employer” and said he had never had a “cross word with him”.

He told the court of numerous bonuses he had received while working for Richard Quirke including an old timber building, holidays and various sums of money between €5,000 and €20,000 over the 12 years.

When he began working with the Quirke estates, he had been a subcontractor, the court heard.

He used his own vehicle and equipment, and Richard Quirke paid for the upkeep.

However, in 2013 when it came time for the jeep to be replaced, Mr Alley said that Mr Quirke purchased for him an Audi Q7 Jeep.

This was a commercial vehicle with no seats in the back.

It was registered to and insured by the company but Mr Alley was the named driver.

This vehicle was traded in, sometime in 2016 or 2017, and a second Audi Q7 Jeep was purchased for around €24,000.

Mr Alley said he had organised the vehicle but Mr Quirke signed off on the purchase.

Again, Mr Alley was the driver, but this time the jeep was not a commercial vehicle.

Benefit-In-Kind

Mr Alley told the court that after the purchase of the vehicle, another employee of Mr Quirke’s, Patrick Martin raised concerns about the vehicle as a benefit-in-kind.

Mr Martin, according to Mr Alley, was responsible for financial matters at the company including paying invoices, operating the offices and dealing with the accountants.

Mr Martin is now deceased.

Mr Alley told the court that he, Mr Martin and Mr Quirke had lunch and discussed the vehicle.

They decided that Mr Martin’s concerns could be alleviated by transferring the ownership of the jeep to the defendant.

Mr Alley said that it was decided that the jeep would be part bonus, part gift, but that as it was valued higher than his usual bonus, he would pay Mr Quirke €5,000.

Mr Alley said he did so a week later, in cash and that there was no written contract.

Mr Quirke continued to pay the expenses incurred by the defendant while using the vehicle for work, the court heard.

Shortly after, the three men went to lunch and Mr Alley was given the tax book signed by Mr Quirke.

Mr Alley told the court that it was approximately one year later that he registered the vehicle in his name, as he had at that point, been struggling financially.

He said the vehicle was used “purely” for work purposes and was kept outside his house in Dundrum when not in use.

CEASED AND SEIZED

Then, in 2021, Mr Alley ceased his employment with Mr Quirke.

Mr Alley told the court that he continued to have a good relationship with Mr Quirke.

However, when Mr Quirke became ill, members of his family stepped in and took over some of his business affairs.

Mr Alley said that was when the relationship deteriorated.

“I couldn’t stick it any longer. I was out sick for a while. The pressure was too much,” said Mr Alley.

When his employment ceased, he received an email asking him to return his laptop, phone and the jeep.

He instructed his solicitor to take the matter of the jeep.

“As far as I was concerned, the jeep was mine and I made that arrangement with Mr Quirke.”

However, the court heard that a detective came to Mr Alley’s home and informed him he was being accused of stealing and took the jeep along with the laptop and phone.

The barrister acting for Mr Alley, Donal Cronin clarified for the court that Mr Alley was told he had stolen the vehicle by dishonest appropriation.

Mr Alley told the court that he was “quite shocked” to have been accused and had at no time hidden the vehicle.

He said he had parked it outside his home and was driving the jeep.

He said that he had worked very hard for Mr Quirke and they had never had an issue.

“As I said, he was generous but I worked very hard for him so I never gave him a reason for a cross word,” said Mr Alley.

DISPUTE

Mr Cronin pointed out to the defendant that at the previous hearing of the case, a claim had been made that he and Mr Quirke had fallen out over a sum of money.

He said it was alleged that there was a dispute over €6,000 which was a “revenue liability”.

However, Mr Alley said that wasn’t true.

He said he had taken Mr Quirke to Northern Ireland to give a former employee the money and he believed this was the incident in question.

He told the court that he did not know the former employee as he had worked for Mr Quirke before Mr Alley was taken on as a landscaper.

“That wasn’t me. It was someone who used to work for Mr Quirke,” said Mr Alley.

Inspector James White, acting for the State, pointed out to Mr Alley that at the last hearing, a handwriting
expert had determined that the signature on the tax book was falsified.

He also pointed out that Mr Alley had initially said he paid Mr Quirke €8,000 for the vehicle and given that he had required a loan, he would think he would remember how much he borrowed.

Mr Alley replied to the court saying that the tax book was already signed when it was handed to him in the presence of Mr Quirke and Mr Martin.

He clarified that in his initial statement, he had made two mistakes, the amount of money paid and that another Q7 had been traded in.

Inspector White put it to Mr Alley that he was the sole beneficiary of the vehicle being signed over and that it was convenient that the person who could refute his version of events was dead.

Mr Alley rejected the Inspector’s interpretation of events.

“I saw that I worked very hard that year and I was rewarded with the jeep,” said Mr Alley.

PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION

Judge Elizabeth MacGrath said that she was satisfied that Mr Alley had given a “plausible explanation” for how he had acquired the vehicle.

She said this was sufficient to dismiss the charge, in a criminal case.

The judge noted the previous evidence given by a representative of the Department of Transport, the handwriting expert and Richard Quirke.

She also noted the defendant’s 12 years of employment, starting as a landscaper and becoming a “linchpin in Mr Quirke’s various businesses”.

She also noted that he was laid off in 2021.

She said that Mr Quirke’s evidence was “somewhat confused probably due to his health”.

Judge MacGrath said that she acknowledged that the handwriting expert had concluded that the signature was not written by Mr Quirke, but by someone familiar with his signature.

However, she noted that the expert had classified the evidence as “limited”.

She said that even if you accepted that it was falsified, there was no evidence that Mr Alley had been the one to forge the signature.

She said she acknowledged that Mr Alley had not hidden the vehicle.

“Mr Alley has given a very plausible explanation,” said Judge MacGrath.

Judge MacGrath dismissed the case against Mr Alley.

RETURN OF THE VEHICLE

Mr Cronin asked Judge MacGrath to order the return of the vehicle to Mr Alley.

Inspector White pointed out that the Quirke family opposed this and wished it to be returned to them.

Judge MacGrath told both counsels that the return of the vehicle needed to be dealt with by property application.