Luoni v Police - [2016] NZHC 695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-419-000007 [2016] NZHC 695

BETWEEN
ELIZABETH MARY LUONI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 April 2016

Counsel:

T Sutcliffe for Appellant
S F Gilbert for Respondent

Judgment:

15 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 April 2016 at 10.00am pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Counsel:
T Sutcliffe, Hamilton

LUONI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 695 [15 April 2016]

The appeal

[1] Ms Luoni was charged with various offences involving dishonesty arising out of her actions as an employee of Ancor Loc New Zealand Ltd (the employer). The offending occurred between 2 May 2013 and 21 June 2014. On 20 October 2015, Ms Luoni entered pleas of guilty in the District Court at Te Awamutu to all charges.1
She was sentenced on 27 January 2016. Judge Burnett imposed an effective end sentence of 11 months’ home detention.2 Ms Luoni appeals against that sentence on the grounds that it is either inappropriate or manifestly excessive.

[2] An order was made in the District Court that interim name suppression continue pending determination of the appeal. Mr Sutcliffe, for Ms Luoni, responsibly accepts that there is no basis on which continuation of name suppression can be supported. On delivery of this judgment, the interim order lapses and Ms Luoni’s name may be published.

The facts

[3] Ms Luoni entered guilty pleas to one representative charge of theft by a person in a special relationship,3 one representative charge of obtaining property by deception,4 one representative charge of false accounting,5 and one representative charge of dishonestly using a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage.6
There were two further charges of dishonestly using a document, both referable to specific incidents.

[4] Ms Luoni was employed as an office administrator. She commenced her employment on 3 April 2013. Her salary was $48,000 per annum. Her duties included keeping accounting records and making direct transfers of funds from her employer to other bank accounts. Those payments were to be made pursuant to directions from duly authorised managers. Ms Luoni became an authorised cheque
signatory on 5 July 2013.

1      The charges are detailed at paras [3], and [6]–[10] below.
2      New Zealand Police v Luoni [2016] NZDC 2665.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 220.
4      Ibid, s 240(1)(a).
5      Ibid, s 260(a).
6      Ibid, s 228(b).

[5] During her tenure, Ms Luoni was regarded as a good employee. While her duties remained unchanged, on or about 8 November 2013 her salary was increased to $53,000 per annum. Ms Luoni was dismissed on 10 July 2014, when her offending was detected.

[6] Detection of the offending followed the engagement of a temporary office assistant to work for a period of 12 weeks while Ms Luoni was on maternity leave. That employee discovered irregularities in company payments, and drew them to the attention of management. An audit was…

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 Luoni v Police

Details

AGLC: Luoni v Police [2016] NZHC 695
Case: [2016] NZHC 695
Decision Date: 15 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Elizabeth Mary Luoni appealed against her sentence of 11 months’ home detention and a reparation order of $51,000, imposed by Judge Burnett in the District Court. Ms Luoni had pleaded guilty to offences of theft in a special relationship, obtaining property by deception, false accounting, and dishonestly using a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage, arising from her employment as an office administrator. The offending occurred between May 2013 and June 2014. Detection followed the engagement of a temporary office assistant who identified irregularities in company payments. It was determined that Ms Luoni had misappropriated a total of $41,010.02 from her employer. Investigative costs totalled $9,995.80, resulting in a total loss to the employer of $51,005.82. The District Court Judge took a starting point of three to three and a half years’ imprisonment, reduced to between two years three months’ and two years seven months’ imprisonment, after taking into account early guilty pleas and Ms Luoni’s offer to pay reparation. The Judge imposed a sentence of 11 months’ home detention and ordered Ms Luoni to pay reparation of $51,000. The appeal was heard on 12 April 2016 and judgment was delivered on 15 April 2016. The appeal was allowed. The sentences imposed by the District Court were set aside. In substitution, the High Court imposed a sentence of eight months’ home detention and ordered Ms Luoni to pay reparation of $9,000, of which $3,000 had already been paid. The sum of $6,000 was to be paid to the employer by 4pm on Wednesday 20 April 2016.

Orders