Parata v The King - [2025] NZHC 1437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000102

[2025] NZHC 1437

BETWEEN
LANCE PARATA

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 26 May 2025

Counsel:

KE Tuialii for Appellant

BN Kirkpatrick for Respondent

Judgment:

5 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 5 June 2025 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. KE Tuialii, Auckland.

PARATA v R [2025] NZHC 1437 [5 June 2025]

The appeal

[1] Sentencing for fraud turns on many things, including the nature of the offending; its scale and sophistication; the amount involved; the number of victims; and the extent of harm.1 Mitigating features are also relevant.

[2] Between 25 November 2019 and 9 May 2022, Lance Parata defrauded his employer of $57,469.15. Mr Parata was sentenced to a term of 24 months’ imprisonment.2 He appeals that sentence.

[3] Mr Parata’s appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.3 The overarching concern is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive rather than how it was determined.4

Background

[4] Mr Parata was employed by NPD Maintenance Ltd, a small company which operates a commercial vehicle and machinery workshop. Mr Parata began at the company in May 2018. He was responsible for buying parts, taking bookings, producing invoices, and sending invoices to clients. Consequently, Mr Parata had access to the company’s invoicing system. His offending is captured by the agreed summary of facts:

Circumstances

….

Over the period of his employment, the defendant produced 34 preliminary or “proforma” invoices for work undertaken by NPD Maintenance using the company’s computer system “SAM”.

SAM is a computer management system for automotive workshops. These proforma invoices were linked to a job in SAM.
Once the jobs had been completed and were at the invoice processing stage, the defendant altered the proforma invoices he had previously created.

1      Varjan v R CA97/03, 26 June 2003.
2      R v Parata [2025] NZDC 3042.
3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
4      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482.

He deleted the complainant’s company bank account number on the invoices and replaced the company’s bank account number with his own Westpac bank account number, [redacted].

The defendant emailed the modified invoices to the customers from his own work email address, [redacted].

The defendant deleted the 34 jobs off the system so that there was no record of the job.

Obtains by deception (over $1,000) (as a representative charge)

Between 22 November 2019 and 2 May 2022, the defendant created 20 proforma invoices for jobs completed by NPD Maintenance that had a value over $1,000.

He then altered the 21 invoices, replacing the complainant’s company bank on the invoice with account with his own Westpac bank account number, [redacted].

The defendant received a total of $50,109.27 into his personal bank account.

Obtains by deception ($500 - $1,000) (as a representative charge)

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 Parata v The King

Details

AGLC: Parata v The King [2025] NZHC 1437
Case: [2025] NZHC 1437
Decision Date: 5 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court heard an appeal by Lance Parata against his sentence for defrauding his employer, NPD Maintenance Ltd, of $57,469.15 over a period between 25 November 2019 and 9 May 2022. Parata had been sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment, a term he appealed as manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the nature of the offending, its scale, sophistication, and the amount involved, among other factors. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there was an error in its determination.

Parata's counsel, Ms Tuialii, argued several grounds for appeal. Firstly, the starting point of 36 months' imprisonment was excessive, suggesting a range of 28 to 30 months. However, the court found the starting point was within the appropriate range, considering the significant breach of trust and the number of transactions over a prolonged period. Secondly, Ms Tuialii contended that the guilty plea discount should have been at least 20 percent instead of 15 percent. The court disagreed, noting the meaningful discount and the judge's discretion in this matter. Regarding the discount for Parata's drug use, Ms Tuialii argued it should have been greater, but the court found no error as the discount was appropriate given the circumstances.

Furthermore, Ms Tuialii argued that certain parts of the victim impact statements were improperly considered by the judge. While some redactions were appropriate, the court found that the judge's reliance on these statements did not result in a causative error, as the sentence was justified based on other factors. Lastly, Ms Tuialii contended that the sentence should have accounted for Parata's rehabilitative progress and remorse, but the court found insufficient evidence of tangible remorse and that the bail conditions were not overly restrictive.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The reasoning was grounded in the nature of the offending, the breach of trust, the significant amount defrauded, and the mitigating factors considered by the sentencing judge.

Order: The appeal is dismissed.

Orders