Beasley v The Queen

[2020] NZHC 113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2019-485-87

[2020] NZHC 113

BETWEEN

AMY CLAIRE BEASLEY

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:	7 February 2020
Counsel:	T W Luders for Appellant T G Bain for Respondent
Judgment:	10 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]                 Ms Beasley appeals a sentence of six months’ community detention, 80 hours’ community work and reparation of $510.15. The sentence was imposed in relation to a representative charge of obtaining by deception.

Facts

[2]                 A friend of Ms Beasley gave her the details of his mother’s credit card. He was living down south at the time and said he was returning to Wellington. He was authorised to purchase items on the card to set himself up. He asked Ms Beasley to do it, and said she could buy some items for herself for helping out.

[3]                 The story was untrue. Ms Beasley pleaded guilty in relation to 20 transactions totalling just over $10,000. Approximately half of the value of the goods was recovered. The balance was a loss, primarily to the bank which reimbursed the

BEASLEY v R [2020] NZHC 113 [10 February 2020]

cardholder, and, to a much lesser extent, some businesses. In terms of some for him and some for Ms Beasley for her troubles, her proportion was around 25 per cent.

[4]                 Ms Beasley is 30 years old, a mother of three and with no previous convictions. The pleas were entered on the basis of recklessness; I tend to see the situation as along the lines of wilful blindness, but it is plain that in legal terms her liability for much of the quantum is as an involved party to the friend’s fraud on his mother.

[5]                 The enterprise came to a difficult end. The friend said he was no longer coming and asked Ms Beasley to bring the goods down to him. She declined. Eventually visitors came to her house seeking to claim the goods. Ms Beasley became alarmed and had a family member take them for storage. The family member contacted the owner of the card, and matters went from there. The police were contacted. It is accurate to note that Ms Beasley was therefore involved in disclosing the offending and stopping it. She pleaded guilty at an early point.

Appeal

[6]                 The Judge took a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. There has been little focus on that on the appeal and it is unnecessary to dwell on it. I observe that while probably available for this number of events and a total of $10,000, there are aspects of the offending that suggest the raw numbers may overstate Ms Beasley’s culpability.

[7]There are several features here that require noting:

(a)in terms of culpability, Ms Beasley was to some extent a dupe, albeit the plea indicates she had a degree of awareness;

(b)further, Ms Beasley can be linked to the actions that brought the offending to a halt;

(c)the loss caused is not a major sum, and the deceptive conduct that would directly benefit Ms Beasley was at the lower end of the scale;

(d)it has caused Ms Beasley some degree of difficulty in terms of those who visited her house; and

(e)Ms Beasley is aged 30, a mother and a first offender who is rated at a low risk of reoffending.

[8]                 These factors mean, in my view, the maximum sentence of community detention is manifestly excessive.

[9]                 The appeal is allowed. The sentence of six months’ community detention is quashed and in its place I impose six weeks’ community detention. The balance of the original sentence is unchanged.

[10]              Ms Beasley attends a counselling session during curfew hours. Leave is granted to attend this. Any other necessary variations are to be referred to the District Court.

Simon France J

Solicitors:

Public Defence Service, Wellington for Appellant Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Respondent