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involved money being transferred out of the account of a victim and into the account of a “mule”, from which it was withdrawn.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 A total of $6,048.50 was withdrawn and handed to a passenger in Ms Haereroa’s car.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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NZHC 318
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.