Chapman v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 1452

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2018-443-7

[2018] NZHC 1452

BETWEEN
NADENE CHEREE CHAPMAN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 12 June 2018

Appearances:

J Griffiths for the Appellant

S Simpkin for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[Sentence appeal]

[1] Ms Chapman appeals her sentence from the District Court1 of three years’ imprisonment and reparation of $10,000 following guilty pleas to four charges of dishonestly using a document (two of which are representative)2 and one representative charge of theft in a special relationship.3

[2] Ms Chapman submits the sentence was manifestly excessive, because the starting point was too high when compared to other comparable offending and the Judge failed to take into account the motivation behind Ms Chapman’s offending when fixing the starting point.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal and argues the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Crown submits there was no error in the Judge’s starting

1      R v Chapman [2018] NZDC 3109.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b). Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 220(1), (2) and 223(a). Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

CHAPMAN v R [2018] NZHC 1452 [18 June 2018]

point and the Judge was well aware of the motivations behind Ms Chapman’s offending when determining the appropriate starting point.

Factual background

[4] Ms Chapman was a travel consultant who operated her own travel company, Waitara Travel Ltd. She also took over a comparable business which was unsuccessful and eventually closed, causing Ms Chapman significant financial pressure. The failure of this business meant Ms Chapman was unable to meet her payments as they fell due. In 2016, she sold her own home and put the money into Waitara Travel. Her husband also sold a property to put money into the company.

[5] Ms Chapman accepted money from clients who wished to book holidays through Waitara Travel. At the time of accepting the money, Ms Chapman had no intention of using it to book the holidays those clients wished to take as she was hopelessly behind in her payments. Instead, she used their money to pay for the travel arrangements of other people from whom she had already accepted money. She was effectively funding her business out of deposits made by customers. The offending was discovered when Ms Chapman was attempting to sell her business to House of Travel. This sale fell through and Ms Chapman was bankrupted on 25 September 2017.

[6] Ms Chapman’s offending took place over a period of about one year and eight months. It involved a large number of victims, 91 in total, including House of Travel. As a result of her offending, Ms Chapman caused hardship to a number of a victims who did not receive the travel they had booked and paid for.

Factual dispute about the quantum in issue

[7] The total quantum paid to Ms Chapman and not used specifically to pay for her clients’…

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.

Continue reading Chapman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chapman v The Queen [2018] NZHC 1452
Case: [2018] NZHC 1452
Decision Date: 18 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Nadene Cheree Chapman appeals her sentence from the District Court of three years' imprisonment and reparation of $10,000 following guilty pleas to four charges of dishonestly using a document and one representative charge of theft in a special relationship. Ms Chapman submits the sentence was manifestly excessive, because the starting point was too high when compared to other comparable offending and the Judge failed to take into account the motivation behind Ms Chapman's offending when fixing the starting point. The Crown opposes the appeal and argues the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court finds there was no error in the Judge's starting point and the Judge was well aware of the motivations behind Ms Chapman's offending when determining the appropriate starting point. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders