Home   News   Article

Woman gave false information to police about a knife-point robbery at Inverness post office


By Ali Morrison

Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.



Click here to sign up to our free newsletters!
Inverness Sheriff Court.
Inverness Sheriff Court.

The woman had originally been charged with embezzling £24,740 from the post office where she worked.

Fiona Buchanan (43) of Gilbert Street, Inverness, appeared for sentence at Inverness Sheriff Court after admitting wasting police time and giving them incorrect details about the incident which occurred at the sub-post office at Crown Stores on July 11, 2017.

She had originally been charged with embezzling £24,740 from the premises. The money was never recovered.

Her defence solicitor advocate Mike Chapman told Sheriff Robert Frazer: “She did not provide a full explanation to police about what happened because she was frightened of the man who carried out the robbery.

“But there was a robbery, a knife was pointed at her and money was taken. She has had drug and alcohol issues in the past but she has overcome her problems.

“She is also a first offender which is surprising given her age of 43 and her background. There has been nothing since.”

Sheriff Frazer placed her under two years’ social work supervision and ordered her to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work as an alternative to prison.

He told Buchanan: “What you have done not only wasted police time, but you detracted police resources from where they should be. This makes it more serious.”

At a previous hearing, the court was told that Buchanan was working back shift at the post office from where an order was placed for £26,000 cash to be delivered by a security vehicle.

It arrived at around 3pm on July 11 but at 10.16pm, Buchanan phoned the police to tell them of the robbery. Police then investigated, interviewed witnesses and checked local CCTV footage. Buchanan was arrested at about 8.20am on February 1, 2019 and on suspicion of theft.

The court heard in an agreed narrative between prosecution and defence: “The accused’s statements and account of a robbery was found to be at odds with CCTV evidence.”

No forensic evidence was found either which would implicate the culprit.


View our fact sheet on court reporting here




This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More