Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel:P Davey and D Hayes for Appellant
D B Collins QC Solicitor-General and S Edwards for Crown
Judgment:15 February 2008
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The appeal is allowed.
B The convictions are set aside.
C A new trial is ordered.
REASONS
(Given by Tipping J)
Introduction
[1] The appellant, Ms Hayes, was found guilty on 24 counts of fraudulently using a document contrary to the then s 229A[1] of the Crimes Act 1961 and five counts of dishonestly using a document contrary to the present s 228. All 29 counts related to medical certificates which Ms Hayes submitted to the Accident Compensation Corporation between 10 September 1998 and 7 October 2004. Her purpose in submitting them was to obtain weekly compensation payments. The certificates were in more than one form. It is sufficient for the moment to say that Ms Hayes certified she was not working and not able to work when, as the jury found, she was. Ms Hayes’ appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[2] We will refer a little later to the basis on which the case was argued and determined in that Court. It is convenient first to outline the material facts.
[1]Repealed in 2003, as discussed below, when a new Part 10 of the Crimes Act 1961 was introduced by s 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003.
[2] [2007] NZCA 6 (Robertson, Ronald Young and Venning JJ).
[2] Ms Hayes was involved in a car accident in 1997. She suffered head and neck injuries. At the time of the accident she was working as a primary school teacher. She sought and received weekly compensation from the Corporation for about seven years. The medical certificates which Ms Hayes submitted from time to time contained a “claimant declaration” which she signed. The form of the certificates and declarations changed several times over the period in question, although for present purposes nothing turns on the differences between them. On occasion Ms Hayes was simply required to declare that the medical certificate accurately reflected her activity restrictions. More frequently she was required to sign a fuller standard form declaration along the following lines:
I declare this certificate to be an accurate reflection of my fitness for work, and there is nothing else I need to tell ACC about my circumstances. I understand that I must notify ACC of any employment (part-time, full-time, paid or unpaid) that I undertake and of any income that I receive over the time I am receiving compensation.
[3] The circumstances which gave rise to the charges, as summarised by the Court of Appeal,[3] were these. From October 1997 Ms Hayes was involved, successively, in running two companies which were in the business of emptying effluent ponds on dairy farms. She took an active physical role in assisting her partner with…
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 Hayes v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hayes v R [2008] NZSC 3
Case
[2008] NZSC 3
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Nicola Bronwyn Hayes appealed against her convictions on 29 charges of fraudulently using a document and dishonestly using a document, contrary to the Crimes Act 1961. The charges related to medical certificates which Hayes submitted to the Accident Compensation Corporation between 10 September 1998 and 7 October 2004 to obtain weekly compensation payments. The Court of Appeal dismissed Hayes' appeal against conviction. Hayes appealed to the Supreme Court of New Zealand on the basis that the Court of Appeal erred in law in not directing the jury in respect of the legislative provisions relating to continuing entitlement to a compensation benefit. The Court found that the trial Judge was justified in not directing the jury on the question of entitlement as a pecuniary advantage included Hayes avoiding the risk that, on a reassessment, compensation payments would have been stopped. However, the Court held that the concept of entitlement should not be relevant when construing the term "pecuniary advantage" in the general context of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court held that the offence is directed at the dishonest conduct by means of which the pecuniary advantage is sought and that the statutory purpose must have been to encompass anything capable of being valuable consideration, whether of a monetary kind or of any other kind. The Court held that the trial Judge materially misdirected the jury by introducing a reasonableness criterion, which was not a necessary ingredient. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.