Jackson v Serious Fraud Office - [2012] NZHC 3297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-000251 [2012] NZHC 3297

JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON
Appellant
v

SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE
Respondent

Hearing: 4 December 2012

Counsel: Appellant in person
J Dixon for Respondent

Judgment: 6 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 4.45pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, DX CP24063, Auckland 1140. Email: john.dixon@meredithconnell.co.nz

Copy to:
JW Jackson, C/o Invercargill Prison.

JACKSON V SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-000251 [6 December 2012]

Introduction

[1] John William Jackson appeals against a sentence imposed upon him following the entry of guilty pleas on six charges of accessing a computer for dishonest purposes. He appeals against an end sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment. Mr Jackson appeared in person by video link from prison.

[2] Mr Jackson arrived in New Zealand from South Africa in August 2000 and worked as a project engineer. He formed a business association with Mr and Mrs Chambers and eventually formed a company with them which would secure contracts for the supply and installation of air conditioning systems. Mr Jackson became a director of that company. Then, on more than 70 occasions between June
2006 and August 2009, he misappropriated an aggregate of $571,340.66 from the company. He did this by transferring sums of money using internet banking from the company to bank accounts associated with him and his family. The money has not been repaid. His conduct has had a severe financial impact on the Chambers.

[3] In Mr Jackson’s comments to probation officers he seems to have taken the view that he was entitled to take money because he was being underpaid and doing too much work. There is a question as to whether he feels any sincere remorse for what he has done. In the first probation report it was commented that he expressed little insight and limited remorse, and in the second report one year later it was noted that more remorse was being expressed but there was still a query as to whether it was genuine.

[4] Mr Jackson has no previous criminal history.

The decision

[5] In a detailed decision the Judge set out the background and discussed the victim impact reports. She noted that there were no victim impact reports that were in the form of or had been verified under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. Despite a challenge to them being relied on by the Court, she formed the view that those reports should be considered and noted that they provided a grim picture of the

Chambers’ financial position. They had lost a considerable amount of money and were fearful of losing their home. They were required to pay the creditors after Mr Jackson’s fraud came to light. Their retirement funds had been used to repay loans and overdrafts incurred because of the fraud. Their children have also been considerably affected.

[6] The Judge noted that there…

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 Jackson v Serious Fraud Office

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Serious Fraud Office [2012] NZHC 3297
Case: [2012] NZHC 3297
Decision Date: 6 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jackson v Serious Fraud Office, the appellant, John William Jackson, sought to appeal his sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment following his conviction on six charges of accessing a computer for dishonest purposes. Jackson had misappropriated a substantial sum of $571,340.66 from his business partners over a three-year period through fraudulent transactions. The appeal contested the sentence on several grounds: Jackson alleged that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) had promised not to oppose a sentence of home detention, disputed the accuracy of the facts presented to the sentencing judge, questioned the admissibility of the victim impact statements, and argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal. Regarding the SFO’s stance on home detention, the court found that the SFO had consistently sought a term of imprisonment and had never promised otherwise. The court held that even if the SFO had not opposed home detention, the final decision lay with the sentencing judge, who was unlikely to have considered it. The court also rejected Jackson’s challenge to the summary of facts, noting that the final version was an agreed document and that any disputes should have been raised prior to sentencing. The court further ruled that the lack of formal verification of the victim impact statements did not render them inadmissible, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised caution in using the statements. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, noting the significant breach of trust, the large sum misappropriated, and the lack of remorse shown by Jackson. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence.

Orders