Jones v The the Queen - [2022] NZHC 355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2021-419-000077

[2022] NZHC 355

BETWEEN
CHARLOTTE JANE JONES

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 2 February 2022

Appearances:

S Taylor for the Appellant D Young for the Crown

Judgment:

3 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 03 March 2022 at 3 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

JONES v R [2022] NZHC 355 [3 March 2022]

Introduction

[1] Charlotte Jones appeals against her conviction on two representative charges of theft by a person in a special relationship1 following a judge-alone trial in the District Court at Hamilton.2 On 26 November 2021, Judge Marshall sentenced Ms Jones to five months’ home detention on both charges.3

[2] Ms Jones argues that the trial Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.4 The grounds relied on are that the Judge:

(a)placed undue weight on assumptions made by the primary Crown witnesses, which were inconsistent with corroborative documentary evidence; and

(b)relied on non-expert opinion evidence in respect of accounting information and practices.

[3] Consequently, the Judge arrived at a conclusion which was not supported by the evidence.

Background

[4] Ms Jones was employed as office manager of Pekerau Primary School in Te Awamutu. She was also the secretary of the Board of Trustees for the school.

[5] Various amounts of cash went missing at the school. The representative charges reflect the two relevant timeframes — the first being 1 May 2017 to 31 December 2017 and the second being 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 220(1)(b).
2      R v Jones [2021] NZDC 16363.
3      R v Jones [2021] NZDC 23338 at [11].
4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(2)(b).

[6] Cash payments were handled exclusively by Ms Jones and one other administrative assistant during each period. Primary responsibility for finances at the school lay with Ms Jones.

[7] These payments were processed at a single till in the school’s office. The school had one bank account and the system of accounting was rudimentary. After Ms Jones left her employment, discrepancies were identified in that a large number of cash transactions were unaccounted for and were not banked into the school’s account.

The respective cases

[8] In summary, the Crown argued that Ms Jones’ responsibility for the school’s finances included receiving payments and depositing them into the school’s bank account, and monitoring the bank account. The Crown called four school employees as witnesses, as well as the officer in charge. There was also a memorandum of agreed facts.

[9] Ms Jones argued that she was not responsible for banking the cash received in the office because that was the role of the administrative assistants. The school lacked clear financial procedures so she could not be said to have acted in contravention of her employment and the cash was, in any event, left in an unsecure safe.

[10]…

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 Jones v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Jones v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 355
Case: [2022] NZHC 355
Decision Date: 3 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones v The Queen involves an appeal by Charlotte Jane Jones against her conviction on two charges of theft by a person in a special relationship. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Hamilton, following a judge-alone trial in the District Court at Hamilton. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice occurred, particularly regarding the weight given to assumptions made by the primary Crown witnesses and reliance on non-expert opinion evidence concerning accounting information and practices.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence. The judge had inferred from the job description that Ms Jones was responsible for banking the money, which was a reasonable conclusion based on the actual job description and the context of the school's disorganised procedures. The court concluded that the assumptions made by the Crown witnesses, while not the principal reason for the judge's conclusion, did support the inference drawn from the job description. The court also found that the lack of expert evidence on accounting practices was irrelevant because the precise amount of money missing was not in issue, and Ms Jones accepted that money was not banked but denied having stolen it.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, affirming Ms Jones's conviction on the two charges of theft by a person in a special relationship.

Orders