Harford v Police - [2014] NZHC 1886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-95 [2014] NZHC 1886

BETWEEN
CAROL JOAN HARFORD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 August 2014

Counsel:

PJ Davey for Appellant
MJ Hammer and SR Jacobs for Respondent

Judgment:

11 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Peter Davey (Auckland) for Appellant
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

HARFORD v POLICE [2014] NZHC 1886 [11 August 2014]

Introduction

[1] Ms Harford began work as office manager for a rental car company on 1 May

2009. She was solely responsible for banking the cash paid by customers. Within three weeks of her employment she began to steal some of the cash. She also directed electronic bankings of funds to her personal accounts. This went on until
18 October 2011 when an audit revealed her.

[2] Eventually, Ms Harford pleaded guilty to one representative charge of theft by a person in a special relationship1 and 14 charges of accessing a computer for a dishonest purpose.2 On 18 March 2014, Judge BA Gibson in the District Court at Auckland sentenced Ms Harford to four years’ imprisonment.3 Ms Harford submits that this sentence is manifestly excessive, and she appeals against it.

Issues

[3] Although Ms Harford pleaded guilty to the charges, she did not accept that the amount of money she stole was anywhere near the (approximately) $280,000 that the Crown said had been taken. Accordingly, there was a disputed facts hearing, following which Judge Gibson found proven that Ms Harford stole $276,324.59. Ms Harford, on the morning of the hearing, raised the amount she accepted she took to $69,135.

[4] The first issue is whether the Judge was wrong in finding that Ms Harford stole $276,324.59 because he misdirected himself as to Ms Harford’s credibility and was wrong to conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that someone else was stealing cash.

[5] The second issue is whether the Judge’s starting point of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was too high. Obviously, this depends in large part on whether he was right in his assessment of the amount of money Ms Harford stole. But,
regardless, Ms Harford says that four-and-a-half years is too long.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 220(1)(b).
2      Section 249(1).
3      R v Harford DC Auckland CRI-2012-004-8697, 18 March 2014.

[6] The third issue is the discount for other factors. The Judge gave a discount for Ms Harford’s guilty pleas of 10 per cent. Ms Harford says that taking into account her remorse and any other uncounted factors, she was entitled to 25 per cent discount.

[7] The fourth issue is whether, all matters considered in their totality, the final sentence was clearly excessive.

Ms Harford’s case

[8] Ms Harford gave evidence at the disputed facts hearing that she had not stolen the amount assessed by the Crown. She raised the possibility that someone else might have taken the money. The undisputed evidence of Jessica Gregory was that another employee, Mr Chand, knew the safe combination and Ms Gregory had seen him…

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 Harford 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: [2014] NZHC 1886
Decision Date: 11 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harford v Police was an appeal against sentence in the High Court of New Zealand. The appellant, Carol Joan Harford, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by the District Court for theft and accessing a computer for a dishonest purpose. The appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to decide whether the Judge was wrong in finding that the appellant stole $276,324.59, whether the starting point of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was too high, whether an adequate discount was given for other factors, and whether the final sentence was clearly excessive.

The court found that the Judge was right to find proven that the appellant stole $276,324.59 because the evidence established this beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that a starting point of four years’ imprisonment was within the range available to the Judge considering the factors such as the amount stolen and the breach of trust. The court agreed with the Judge’s approach that an adequate discount was given for other factors, including the appellant’s guilty pleas and background of abuse. The court held that the final sentence of four years’ imprisonment was not clearly excessive because no reparation could be made and reflecting on the quality of the aggravating features.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders