Hicks v Police - [2022] NZHC 312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-163

[2022] NZHC 312

BETWEEN
REBEKAH HICKS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 February 2022

Appearances:

A C Gordon for the Appellant

S R D D Bicknell for the Respondent

Judgment:

28 February 2022

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 February 2022 at 4.15 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

HICKS v NZ POLICE [2022] NZHC 312 [28 February 2022]

Introduction

[1] Rebekah Hicks (also known as Rebecca Harris) was sentenced1 in the Christchurch District Court by Judge Crosbie to two years and two months’ imprisonment on four charges of theft by a person in a special relationship.2 She was ordered to pay reparation of $4,700.20 to the second business affected by her theft.

[2] Ms Hicks appeals against that sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive because the Judge applied credit incorrectly and gave insufficient credit for Ms Hicks’ personal circumstances.

Facts

[3] I will refer to the two businesses which were the victims of Ms Hicks’ current thefts as Company A and Company B.

[4] On 8 March 2016, Ms Hicks commenced employment with Company A. Her role with the company was to deal with and process cash transactions and to maintain the finances. In May 2020, Company A became aware that there were inaccuracies in its accounting records and commenced an internal investigation.

[5] Previously, on 20 January 2020, a customer placed an order for sandblasting and silver zinc coating. Ms Hicks recorded the work required on a job sheet numbered 31935. The work was priced at $120 including GST. When an employee of the customer uplifted the parts, the cash for the sale was handed to another employee who passed it onto Ms Hicks for receipting. At the end of the week an invoice was created on the basis of a cash sale for $120. However, this invoice was cancelled in February and the $120 was never receipted or accounted for. Through the investigation into the discrepancies, a further 20 transactions were identified where invoices for cash sales had been generated, cash paid to Ms Hicks, and the invoice later cancelled with the cash retained by Ms Hicks.

1 Police v Hicks [2021] NZDC 21987.
2 Crimes Act 1961, ss 220 and 223(a) – maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

[6] At a meeting on 20 May 2020, Ms Hicks’ employer questioned her about her involvement in the missing funds. Ms Hicks replied in writing that she admitted to taking the cash instead of banking it. She claimed the total amount outstanding was a sum of $400 and that she intended to repay the money.

[7] Due to this admission the company initiated further investigations into discrepancies arising during the time of Ms Hicks’ employment and uncovered a significant number of thefts. Some of the offending involved Ms Hicks having her personal vehicle serviced on the company accounts, something she was neither…

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 Hicks v Police

Details

AGLC: Hicks v Police [2022] NZHC 312
Case: [2022] NZHC 312
Decision Date: 28 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Rebekah Hicks (also known as Rebecca Harris) against her sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Crosbie in the Christchurch District Court. She was convicted on four charges of theft by a person in a special relationship. The appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the Judge applied credit incorrectly and gave insufficient credit for her personal circumstances. The court found that the approach to applying the discount was not consistent with the two-step methodology outlined in Moses v R, but it was not a material error because the discount was clearly within range. The court was satisfied the Judge’s discount of three months (approximately 8 per cent) afforded for Hicks’ personal circumstances was appropriate and open to him to adopt. The court was not satisfied the sentence was manifestly excessive or outside the range available to the Judge in the exercise of his sentencing discretion. The appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appellant remains sentenced to two years and two months’ imprisonment on four charges of theft by a person in a special relationship, and ordered to pay reparation of $4,700.20 to the second business affected by her theft. The appellant has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the judgment.

Orders