Haereroa v Police

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-000127

[2019] NZHC 318

BETWEEN

MELISSA MARY HAEREROA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 February 2019

Appearances:

N R Wham for Appellant

K Courteney for Respondent

Judgment:

1 March 2019


JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J


Introduction

[1]    On 17 August 2018, the appellant, Melissa Haereroa, was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment on a raft of charges. These included obtaining by deception, theft, wilful trespass, aggravated assault, driving with excess blood alcohol, driving while disqualified and breaches of intensive supervision and community work. She appeals the sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2]There are four distinct sets of charges as follows:

HAEREROA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 318 [1 March 2019]

Set 1 ·     Obtains by deception x 3
Set 2

·     Breach of intensive supervision

·     Breach of community work

·     Theft (under $500) x 2 (resentence)

·     Wilful trespass x 2 (resentence)

Set 3

·     Aggravated assault

·     Theft (over $1000) x 3

·     Theft ($500-$1000) x 4

·     Theft (under $500) x 4

·     Wilful trespass x 5

Set 4

·     Driving with excess blood alcohol (third or subsequent)

·     Driving while disqualified (third or subsequent)

Set 1

[3]    The three convictions for obtaining by deception arise from a complex system of defrauding elderly people through bank accounts. Police referred to the investigation as Operation Eclipse.

[4]    The fraud involved money being transferred out of the account of a victim and into the account of a “mule”, from which it was withdrawn. Sometimes the money was transferred to a second or third “mule” before withdrawal. At least 20 victims were identified, and a total of between $150,000 and $300,000 was taken. Ms Haereroa was convicted in relation to withdrawal transactions relating to three victims.

[5]    In relation to one victim, Ms V, $11,540 was fraudulently transferred from her account to a “mule’s” account on 3 December 2016. The mule and an associate met with Ms Haereroa at The Palms shopping centre. The associate drove their car around Christchurch for the “mule” to withdraw funds, while Ms Haereroa drove in convoy. A total of $6,048.50 was withdrawn and handed to a passenger in Ms Haereroa’s car.

[6]    Regarding a second victim, Ms M, $700 was fraudulently transferred from her account to a “mule’s” account on 17 December 2016. That evening, Ms Haereroa sent

a number of texts to associates and to her son, containing the name and bank account number of the “mule” in this matter. $700 was withdrawn from the “mule’s” account over seven transactions between 19 and 21 December 2016.

[7]    Regarding a third victim, Ms P, $22,000 was fraudulently transferred from her account  to  a  “mule’s”  account  on  28  December  2016.  An  associate  texted   Ms Haereroa’s son and another associate between 10am and 11am telling them they needed to “work asap” and to wake Ms Haereroa up. At 5.01pm that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Haereroa 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
[2019] NZHC 318
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melissa Mary Haereroa appeals her sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment on various charges, including obtaining by deception, theft, trespass, aggravated assault, and driving with excess blood alcohol. The court examines whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. The court analyses the starting point for the obtaining by deception charges, considering the amount of money lost by the victims and the appellant’s role in the fraud. The court finds that while the starting point might be at the higher end of the scale, it is not manifestly excessive. The court also examines the uplifts for previous offending and offending while on bail, finding that they are not excessive. The court concludes that there has not been a significant error on the part of the sentencing Judge, and the sentence imposed is not manifestly excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Final orders: The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.