Patterson v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 38/2008
[2008] NZSC 70
WAYNE THOMAS PATTERSON
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:C J Tennet for Applicant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:28 August 2008

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS
[1]       The applicant pleaded guilty to 10 charges which were representative of benefit fraud involving more than 100 false identities and approximately $3.4 million. He was sentenced by Woodhouse J to a term of eight years’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, alleging that the sentence was manifestly excessive. That Court dismissed the appeal.[1]
[1]      R v Patterson [2008] NZCA 75 (Chambers, Gendall and Harrison JJ).
[2]       Mr Patterson now seeks leave to appeal to this Court on the grounds that:
·     the eight year term of imprisonment was excessive, having regard to other decisions;
·     the applicant should have been given credit for the recovery by the Crown of the payments made to him;
·     the victim impact report contained inadmissible material; and
·     previous convictions of the applicant in other countries should not have been taken into account.

[3] These arguments, which were essentially the grounds advanced before and rejected by the Court of Appeal, lack substance whether assessed individually or collectively. Eight years’ imprisonment cannot possibly be said to be excessive punishment for the biggest known benefit fraud committed in this country. The applicant does not deserve any credit for the recovery of the proceeds, which was achieved notwithstanding his attempts to frustrate recovery. The starting point of the sentencing Judge, and the final sentence, were fixed without regard to the inadmissible material in the victim impact report. The Judge was fully entitled to take into account the previous convictions.
[4] More generally, we agree with the Court of Appeal that Woodhouse J was right “not only in where he ended up but also in every step of the reasoning by which he reached his final result”.[2] The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.
[2] At para [44].
Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patterson v R concerns the applicant, Wayne Thomas Patterson, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges of benefit fraud involving over 100 false identities and approximately $3.4 million. Patterson was sentenced by Woodhouse J to eight years of imprisonment, with a minimum of five years, which he appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and Patterson now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The primary issues before the Supreme Court were whether the eight-year term was excessive, whether Patterson should have received credit for the recovery of payments made to him, whether the victim impact report contained inadmissible material, and whether previous convictions in other countries should have been taken into account.

The Supreme Court found that the eight-year imprisonment term was not excessive given the magnitude of the fraud, which was the largest known case of its kind in the country. The court also ruled that Patterson did not deserve credit for the recovery of the proceeds, as the recovery was achieved despite Patterson's efforts to obstruct it. The court confirmed that the sentencing judge properly considered the inadmissible material in the victim impact report and that the final sentence was unaffected by it. Additionally, the court held that the sentencing judge was justified in taking Patterson's previous convictions into account. The Supreme Court found that Patterson's arguments lacked substance and that the Court of Appeal's reasoning was sound. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed Patterson's application for leave to appeal.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision, it is noted that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The ruling underscores the severity of Patterson's crimes and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, affirming the decisions of both the Court of Appeal and the original sentencing judge.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established