Nin v The Queen

[2017] NZHC 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-419-000076 [2017] NZHC 534

BETWEEN

PANIA LEE NIN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	23 March 2017
Appearances:	L J R Wilkins for Appellant C Ure for Respondent
Judgment:	23 March 2017

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

NIN v R [2017] NZHC 534 [23 March 2017]

[1]      Ms Nin pleaded guilty in the District Court to two representative charges of obtaining a pecuniary benefit by deception.  On 21 November 2016, Judge Menzies sentenced Ms Nin to two years four months imprisonment.1   The Judge also ordered Ms Nin to pay reparation in the sum of $350,139.09.

[2]      Ms Nin appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge erred in principle in imposing the sentence of reparation given the lack of financial information before him.

[3]      Both counsel agree that the appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted to the District Court for the issue of reparation to be determined once further information  regarding  Ms  Nin’s  financial  position  is  known.    The  order  for reparation was made in circumstances where no reparation report had been prepared and Ms Nin had not placed any details before the Court of her financial position. The fact that she was about to serve a sentence of imprisonment also meant the immediate prospect of her paying reparation was virtually nil.   Furthermore, Ms Nin’s employment prospects upon release are uncertain because of the consequences of the present convictions.  This may well impact on her ability to continue in her current occupation as a registered midwife.

[4]      The position is not, however, hopeless so far as reparation is concerned. There is a suggestion that she may receive an inheritance, and there is also a suggestion that she receives superannuation in Australia.   Furthermore, over the years that the offending occurred a large sum of money was paid into a New Zealand bank account.   It is possible that some of these funds remain intact and may be applied to a sentence of reparation.

[5]      For these reasons I am satisfied it is appropriate to remit the matter to the District Court so that the issue of reparation can be determined afresh.  I therefore set the sentence of reparation aside and make an order under s 251(2)(c) of the Criminal

Procedure Act 2011 remitting the proceeding to the District Court for that purpose.  I

1      Ministry of Health v Nin [2016] NZDC 23378.

make a further order under s 33 of the Sentencing Act 2002 that a reparation report is to be prepared for the purpose of sentencing in the District Court.  Furthermore, I make an order under s 42 of the Sentencing Act 2002 requiring Ms Nin to provide a

declaration as to her financial affairs within 28 days of today’s date.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton