Barry Raymond Whitelaw v The Queen

[2012] NZSC 103

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 73/2012
[2012] NZSC 103

BARRY RAYMOND WHITELAW

v

THE QUEEN

Court:             Elias CJ, McGrath and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel:         Applicant in Person
K E Salmond for Crown

Judgment:      28 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal[1] dismissing his appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Hamilton of 2 years, 5 months imprisonment.  The sentence was imposed in relation to 11 counts of using a document with intent to defraud and dishonestly using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.  The offending occurred over a period of approximately 7 years during which time the applicant obtained by fraud an invalid benefit and supplementary benefits amounting to $76,164.21.  There were 11 separate occasions when the applicant supplied the Ministry of Social Development with false information.  He also omitted to inform the Ministry of material changes to his circumstances.  The applicant pleaded guilty on the morning of trial.

   [1]      CA 359/2012, 20 September 2012.

2. In sentencing the applicant, Judge Tompkins began with a starting point of 2 years lifted by 9 months because of what he described as the applicant’s “prolific and recidivist fraud history”.[2]  After a reduction of 4 months for the guilty pleas, the sentence imposed was arrived at.

   [2]      Since 1980 the applicant has accumulated over 100 convictions, almost 60 of which involve dishonesty.

3. The Court of Appeal fully considered the matters put forward on behalf of the applicant as to why the sentence was excessive.  It pointed out that the applicant’s past offending was relevant under s (9)(j) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

4. The application raises no matter of general or public importance.  For the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, there is nothing to suggest that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred.  No point of principle arises.

5. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.  It is unnecessary as a result to deal with the application for bail.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent