Campbell v Police - [2013] NZHC 838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-454-8 [2013] NZHC 838

BETWEEN GLADYS RUTH CAMPBELL Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2013

Counsel: C P Brosnahan for the Appellant
A C Whittaker for the Crown

Judgment: 19 April 2013

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 April 2013 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: B D Vanderkolk, PO Box 31, Palmerston North 4440
Roger Crowley, PO Box 744, Wanganui

Counsel: C P Brosnahan, PO Box 785, Wanganui.

CAMPBELL V POLICE HC PMN CRI-2013-454-8 [19 April 2013]

Circumstances of the offending

[1] Ms Campbell was employed full-time as accounts administrator at Aztec Engineering (the Company) on 23 February 2010. Her duties included the payroll management for 30 staff; the management of accounts payable and monies received; the invoicing of customers; and payment of supplier invoices.

[2] Between 16 March and 8 December Ms Campbell falsified and manipulated entries in the Company’s accounting system. Specifically, she created fictitious company names similar to the Company’s actual providers and generated supporting documentation in order to obtain payment authorisations from the managing directors of the Company. One hundred and four such transactions were completed totalling $252,402.80 and the money was paid into her own bank accounts.

[3] Ms Campbell also used the accounting system to overpay herself holiday and sick leave to a total sum of $8,802.20. Overall, Ms Campbell fraudulently obtained
$261,205 from her employer.

[4] Mr Brown, a director and shareholder of the company told the Court in his victim impact statement that Ms Campbell’s offending had caused severe financial hardship and distress to the company and its directors at a time when the company was already struggling financially because of the recession. Mr Brown and his fellow director had been required to extend the company’s overdraft and to inject a further $35,000 into the company. This money represented personal savings and education funds for Mr Brown’s children. The depletion of the company’s funds by the appellant put the company and the future of its other employees in jeopardy

[5] Understandably, Mr Brown and his co-director and their families have suffered severe emotional strain as the result of the appellant’s offending as well as the undeserved financial pressure she has put them under.

[6] Mr Brown has expressed his absolute disgust at the violation, mistrust and betrayal displayed by the appellant, especially when she was paid well and treated

with the utmost respect and dignity by the directors and staff at Aztec Engineering. Naturally, Mr Brown and his co-director feel very betrayed by the breach of trust.

[7] A further unfortunate aspect is that, since sentence was passed, the reparation ordered is not likely to be able to be paid to the victims, as the appellant has been declared bankrupt and the available funds held by the Official Assignee will be used to pay all creditors and will not be available to be…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Campbell v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 838
Decision Date: 19 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Gladys Ruth Campbell appeals her sentence for misappropriation of funds from her employer, Aztec Engineering, where she held the position of accounts administrator. Ms. Campbell was found guilty of committing 104 fraudulent transactions amounting to $252,402.80, and misappropriating a further $8,802.20 through falsified sick and holiday leave payments, resulting in a total of $261,205.00 stolen. The appeal focuses on the sentence of two years and three months imprisonment imposed by Judge Lynch, as well as an order for reparation of $110,000 to be deducted from her superannuation benefit upon her release. Ms. Campbell argues that insufficient weight was given to her personal mitigating factors, and that she should have been granted a sentence of home detention instead. The Crown submits that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that home detention would not have been suitable in this case.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and that Judge Lynch had taken a meticulous approach to the sentencing exercise. The court held that certain personal mitigating factors, such as Ms. Campbell's gambling addiction, were not available mitigating features. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, but the court did revise the reparation order to $37,000, to be paid by Ms. Campbell through fortnightly deductions from her superannuation benefit upon her release. If possible, the sum will be paid sooner out of the funds held by the Official Assignee, which will benefit the victims.

Orders