Legal Research
Cases
Crosbie v Police

Crosbie v Police

Case [2023] NZHC 1361 29 May 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2023-425-000002

[2023] NZHC 1361

BETWEEN
SHANNA MAREE CROSBIE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 29 May 2023

Appearances:

W J Wright for the Appellant

M B Brownlie for the Respondent

Judgment:

29 May 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] On 22 March 2023, Ms Shanna Maree Crosbie was sentenced to 12 months’ supervision and 125 hours community work by Judge Walker in the Gore District Court having pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)Forgery with intent to obtain property;

(b)Forgery with intent for the forged document to be acted upon as genuine; and

(c)Using a forged document.

SHANNA MAREE CROSBIE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1361 [29 May 2023]

[2] Judge Walker denied Ms Crosbie’s applications for a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression. Ms Crosbie now appeals against refusal to grant a discharge without conviction, the sentence, and refusal to grant permanent name suppression.

Facts

[3] During 2022, Ms Crosbie was employed as a health coach working out of Gore Health Clinic. This was a non-clinical role and Ms Crosbie was not authorised to issue prescriptions of any kind. However, Ms Crosbie did have access to the patient data base. Using this access, Ms Crosbie created false prescriptions for Tramadol, a strong pain medication, and forged a doctor’s signature on it. She then presented the forged document to a pharmacy to obtain the medication on some five occasions.

[4] Subsequently, Ms Crosbie attempted to repeat this process again to obtain another kind of pain medication, Codeine but was thwarted in her attempt by a malfunctioning printer. While Ms Crosbie did manage to obtain some Codeine, as a result of the printer malfunctioning, Ms Crosbie’s employer was alerted to the situation. Following this, Ms Crosbie immediately resigned.

[5]Ms Crosbie is 38 years of age and has one dated conviction for drink-driving.

District Court’s Decision

[6] The District Court judgment first determined the application for a discharge without conviction.

[7] Judge Walker considered that there was an element of premeditation in the offending and noted that it involved a considerable breach of trust, heightening the gravity of the offending. On the reverse side of the coin, the Judge noted that Ms Crosbie had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, had no relevant criminal history, a low likelihood of re-offending and risk to the community, showed significant remorse and had personal circumstances of addiction, health, and other matters which mitigated her culpability. The conclusion the Judge came to after considering all the circumstances was that the offending was of moderate seriousness.

[8] The Judge assessed the consequences of conviction as low to moderate. Ms Crosbie had not substantiated her claims that the convictions would prevent her from travelling or obtaining future employment. In any case, prospective employers should know about the nature of the convictions given they involved a breach of trust against Ms Crosbie’s employer. Accordingly, the Judge determined…

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 Crosbie v Police

Details

AGLC: Crosbie v Police [2023] NZHC 1361
Case: [2023] NZHC 1361
Decision Date: 29 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shanna Maree Crosbie appeals against the decision of the Gore District Court to refuse her application for a discharge without conviction, her sentence, and the refusal to grant permanent name suppression. Ms Crosbie was employed as a health coach at Gore Health Clinic and was not authorised to issue prescriptions. She created false prescriptions for Tramadol and forged a doctor’s signature, presenting them to a pharmacy on several occasions. She attempted a similar process for Codeine, which was thwarted by a printer malfunction. Ms Crosbie pleaded guilty to forgery with intent, forgery with intent for the forged document to be acted upon as genuine, and using a forged document. The District Court sentenced her to 12 months’ supervision and 125 hours of community work, and denied her applications for a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the District Court erred in denying Ms Crosbie a discharge without conviction, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the refusal to grant name suppression was erroneous. The Court found that the District Court did not err in assessing the gravity of the offending as moderately serious, nor in concluding that the consequences of conviction were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The Court also found that the sentence of 12 months’ supervision and 125 hours’ community work was manifestly excessive and substituted a sentence of nine months’ supervision and 75 hours’ community work. The Court further found that the refusal to grant name suppression was not erroneous as the threshold for extreme hardship was not met.

The appeal against the refusal to grant a discharge without conviction and the refusal to grant name suppression was dismissed. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentence of 12 months’ supervision and 125 hours’ community work was quashed and replaced with a sentence of nine months’ supervision and 75 hours’ community work. An interim order of name suppression for Ms Crosbie was made until 5 pm on Tuesday 6 June 2023 to protect her possible right to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal.

Orders