JARROD PETER MADDREN AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE
[2024] NZHC 2599
•10 September 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2024-404-000363
[2024] NZHC 2599
BETWEEN JARROD PETER MADDREN
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 9 September 2024 Appearances:
T Clee for Appellant
K O’Halloran for Respondent
Judgment:
10 September 2024
JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
[Appeal against sentence]
This judgment was delivered by me on 10 September 2024 at 2.00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………
Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: T Clee, Barrister, Auckland
MADDREN v NZ POLICE [2024] NZHC 2599 [10 September 2024]
Introduction
[1]Jarrod Maddren pleaded guilty to the following charges:
(a)using a forged document x5;
(b)obtaining by deception x4;
(c)money laundering;
(d)possession of methamphetamine; and
(e)driving while suspended (third or subsequent).
[2] On 16 July 2024, Judge N R Dawson sentenced Mr Maddren to three years, three months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Maddren appeals against the sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive.
Background
[3] Mr Maddren’s dishonesty offending occurred over a number of years. On 15 December 2019 he used a forged driver’s licence as proof of identification to rent a Toyota Land Cruiser. The vehicle valued at $80,000 was never returned.
[4]On 15 December 2019 Mr Maddren obtained goods from JB Hi-Fi totalling
$8,045.90 using a Q card that had been obtained fraudulently. He also obtained goods from Carpet Court, Newmarket, totalling $6,186.92 using the same card.
[5] On three occasions between 19 December 2020 and 4 January 2021 Mr Maddren transferred money from fraudulently obtained credit cards into fraudulent TAB accounts before withdrawing $5,100 from those accounts using forged drivers’ licences.
1 NZ Police v Maddren [2024] NZDC 16767.
[6] On 24 February 2021, Mr Maddren used a forged driver’s licence to obtain a new SIM card for a complainant’s phone number. Following that, $35,945.77 was transferred out of the complainant’s bank account by an unknown person using the number.
[7] Between 8 and 24 March 2021, Mr Maddren used a forged driver’s licence to obtain a new SIM card for another victim’s phone number, following which an unknown person unsuccessfully tried to access the victim’s bank account. During this period Mr Maddren also used a fraudulently obtained Q card, together with a forged driver’s licence to obtain goods from JB Hi Fi, Botany, valued at $5,247.
[8] Next, between 18 and 26 March 2021, Mr Maddren opened a joint bank account using a forged driver’s licence, following which $24,000 was transferred into that account from another victim. Mr Maddren accepts he received $4,800.
[9] Finally, on 26 October 2022, when Mr Maddren was arrested and his home and car searched, a small amount of methamphetamine was located in his vehicle.
Procedural background
[10] Initially Mr Maddren faced 24 charges. The total amount of the loss alleged was approximately $180,000. Following a sentence indication which was not accepted, a resolution was reached leading to 12 charges being withdrawn and Mr Maddren pleading guilty to the remaining 12 charges.
Judge Dawson’s sentencing decision
[11] The Judge adopted a start point of three years, nine months’ imprisonment for the dishonesty charges with an uplift of one month for the driving and methamphetamine offences. He then applied a discount of 10 per cent for the guilty plea and a further 10 per cent for Mr Maddren’s health issues which reduced the sentence by nine months to three years, two months’ imprisonment. No reparation was ordered and the Judge remitted Mr Maddren’s fines of $8,771.90.
Appeal submissions
[12] Mr Maddren appeals the sentence. The sentence appeal is advanced on the basis that the end sentence imposed was manifestly excessive because the Judge overstated the quantum of Mr Maddren’s offending. Mr Clee submitted the Judge referred to values based on charges that had been dismissed or withdrawn which led to an inflated start point for the sentencing.
[13] On Mr Clee’s analysis the amount obtained by Mr Maddren was $109,379.82, calculated as follows:
Vehicle
$80,000.00
JB Hi Fi
$8,045.90
Carpet Court
$6,186.92
TAB
$5,100.00
JB Hi Fi
$5,247.00
Money Launder
$4,800.00
Total
$109,379.82
[14] Mr Clee accepted that there were further losses in relation to two other charges, but submitted Mr Maddren was not charged with obtaining or retaining the particular funds, namely the $35,945.77 and the $24,000 withdrawn from another victim’s account, of which Mr Maddren only received $4,800.
[15] Mr Clee noted that the Judge had referred incorrectly in his sentencing notes to the losses caused by Mr Maddren’s offending as totalling $180,000:
[17] The gravity of your offending and your degree of culpability of your offending are both high. I need to take into account the effects on the victims which are clearly set out in their victim impact statements. There are aggravating factors I need to take into account. There was over $180,000 of money lost to persons in the community by your offending. You also caused a considerable amount of stress to all the victims. There was a high degree of premeditation involved and this occurred over a two-year period. It was prolific and ongoing sophisticated offending. Your previous convictions are also an aggravating factor.
[16] There were 22 dishonesty charges before the Court at the sentencing indication. At the time Police had sought a starting point of between three years, nine months and four years’ imprisonment. Mr Clee made the point that, following that indication (which was not accepted), 12 dishonesty charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. He submitted that, having regard to Rako v R and Varjan v R,2 the starting point for the reduced number of offences should be 28 months’ imprisonment. He confirmed that Mr Maddren did not suggest the end sentence would be less than 24 months so accepted that home detention was not an option.
Approach to the appeal
[17] In Tutakangahau v R the Court of Appeal confirmed that on appeal the appellant must show there was an error “whether intrinsically or as a result of additional material submitted” on appeal.3 If an error is established, the appellate court will then form its own view of the appropriate sentence. The error must be material. Further, the concept of a manifestly excessive sentence is longstanding and should continue to be utilised when considering whether there was an error and if a different sentence should be imposed. Finally, the focus of the sentence remains on whether the end sentence is within range rather than the process by which it was reached.
Analysis
[18]I accept that Judge Dawson was in error when he referred to the sum of
$180,000 as the money lost to the community by Mr Maddren’s offending.
[19] While I accept Ms O’Halloran’s point that in the body of his sentencing notes the Judge correctly referred to and identified the charges Mr Maddren had pleaded guilty to and so did not sentence him on the basis of charges that he had not pleaded guilty to, it does seem the Judge had in his mind that he was dealing with losses to the community of $180,000 when in fact he was dealing with losses of just under
$157,000. However that difference is modest and of itself unlikely to require any significant change to the starting point.
2 Rako v R [2015] NZCA 463; and Varjan v R CA97/03, 26 June 2003.
3 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279.
[20] I reject Mr Clee’s submission that the proper approach is to look at the gains to Mr Maddren. Rather, the appropriate consideration is the losses to the community caused by Mr Maddren’s offending. To the extent that he also benefitted substantially, as he did in this case, then that is a further aggravating factor. However, accepting that the Judge was in error it is necessary for this Court to form its own view as to the appropriate sentence.
[21] As noted, Mr Clee referred to the Court of Appeal judgment of Rako v R.4 Mr Rako had been found guilty of 11 charges of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage and had pleaded guilty to charges of theft, unlawfully converting a motor vehicle, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and driving while forbidden. The sentencing Judge had taken a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment for the lead offending, being the 11 offences of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage. I consider the case of Rako is of little assistance as a comparator. As the Court of Appeal noted, the amount Mr Rako unlawfully obtained was $1,800, which is substantially less than the loss to the community caused by Mr Maddren.
[22] In Varjan,5 the Court took into account that Mr Varjan had derived very little personal gain and in that case had lost his standing as an honest and respected bank officer. Nevertheless a sentence of two years’ imprisonment was imposed. It is immediately apparent that Mr Maddren is in a quite different position to the defendant in Varjan.
[23] In Rako v R the Court did note that there is no tariff for this type of offending as it can occur in such a wide range of circumstances. For that reason there is only limited utility in examining other sentencing decisions.
[24] To the extent other decisions are of assistance, I agree with Ms O’Halloran that the more relevant authorities are those cited by the Police, namely Helsby-Knight v R and Beaumont v Police.6 In Mr Helsby-Knight’s case, Mr Helsby-Knight had been convicted of 117 charges of dishonest use of a document. His offending involved over
4 Rako v R, above n 2.
5 Varjan v R, above n 2.
6 Helsby-Knight v R [2015] NZCA 315; and Beaumont v Police [2022] NZHC 472.
110 victims and losses of $156,790. The Court of Appeal considered a starting point of three years, six months was appropriate, albeit at the lower end of the acceptable range.
[25] In Beaumont there were 39 dishonesty charges for various offences. The 39 victims had lost $65,000 over two and a half years. A starting point of three years, nine months was adopted. While both cases involved more charges than Mr Maddren’s offending, I agree with Ms O’Halloran that neither featured offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and Beaumont featured offending over a similar length of time but with significantly lower loss, whereas in Helsby-Knight the offending was for a shorter duration but almost identical loss.
[26] Mr Maddren’s offending, as reflected in the charges that he pleaded guilty to, involved serious fraudulent activity over a sustained period of time affecting a number of people and involving losses to the community or financial institutions of just under
$157,000. Judge Dawson’s starting point of three years, nine months, while at the top end of the range available to him, was still within range.
[27] The uplift of one month for the methamphetamine offending and driving cannot be criticised.
[28] As to the mitigating factors, 10 per cent was the maximum allowable for the guilty plea, given the stage at which the plea was entered and the strong Police case. The allowance of 10 per cent for Mr Maddren’s health was appropriate. There is no further information before the Court to suggest that any greater uplift should be applied for health.
[29] On that basis, applying the total discounts consistent with the approach of the Court of Appeal in Moses,7 leads to an end result of three years and some weeks. Although the difference is modest, given that the starting point was at the higher end of the range and that the Judge was in error in referring to losses of $180,000, I accept the sentence should be adjusted.
7 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, at [46].
Result
[30]The appeal is allowed.
[31] The sentence imposed by the District Court is quashed. It is replaced with a sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The order remitting fines is confirmed.
Venning J
2
5
0