Proctor v Police - [2016] NZHC 2656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-485-65 [2016] NZHC 2656

REBEKAH LAURA PROCTOR

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 27 October 2016

Appearances:

E Hall for appellant
S C Carter and L C Hann for respondent

Judgment:

7 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF CULL J (Appeal against sentence)

[1] The appellant appeals her sentence of two years five months’ imprisonment for one representative charge of dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015, to which she pleaded guilty.1

The facts

[2] The offending occurred in the context of the appellant’s employment at

Victoria University of Wellington. She was authorised to approve payments up to

$10,000. In January 2013, the appellant set up a fictitious entity as a new vendor for contracting work, and proceeded to invoice the University, by way of 106 fictitious invoices, a total of $481,000 over the following three years. Reparation has taken
place as a result of separate civil proceedings.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b).

REBEKAH LAURA PROCTOR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2656 [7 November 2016]

The sentencing decision

[3] In sentencing the appellant, the Judge took into account the aggravating features of the offending. They are summarised as follows:

(a) The money stolen was considerable, namely $480,000.

(b) The theft occurred over a two year 11 month period (the Judge noted

30 months).

(c) It was done on more than 100 occasions over a two year 11 month period.

(d)The offending was against a university which is a Crown entity, funded in-part by the Government.

(e) The offending was premeditated and was a gross breach of trust, given the high degree of autonomy in the appellant’s role.

(f) It was sophisticated.

(g)The offending only stopped when a senior manager discovered the discrepancies.

[4] Given the aggravating aspects of the offending, the Judge concluded the offending was serious and found the starting point was four and a half years’ imprisonment.

[5] He took into account the appellant’s previous good character, that she had not previously offended and allowed a discount of six months’ imprisonment. He allowed a further six month deduction for the reparation, which was to be paid. That lowered the starting point to three and a half years and from that, the appellant was given a full discount of 25 per cent for her plea of guilty and a 5 per cent deduction for remorse and attendance at the restorative justice meeting.

[6] The appellant was convicted and sentenced to two years and five months’ imprisonment. The appellant’s application for name suppression was declined, because the effects of publication on the appellant and her family were not such as to amount to extreme hardship.

The appellant’s submissions

[7] The appellant appeals the sentence, on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive and that the appropriate outcome was one of home detention and community work. The appellant contends that the Judge erred in the following respects:

(a) The starting point adopted was too high…

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 Proctor v Police

Details

AGLC: Proctor v Police [2016] NZHC 2656
Case: [2016] NZHC 2656
Decision Date: 7 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rebekah Laura Proctor, appeals her sentence of two years five months’ imprisonment for dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015, to which she pleaded guilty. The offending occurred in the context of the appellant’s employment at Victoria University of Wellington, where she was authorised to approve payments up to $10,000. The appellant set up a fictitious entity as a new vendor for contracting work, and proceeded to invoice the University, by way of 106 fictitious invoices, a total of $481,000 over the following three years. Reparation has taken place as a result of separate civil proceedings. The appellant contends that the Judge erred in the starting point adopted, and in not giving adequate discounts for the mitigating factors. The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of two years five months’ imprisonment is quashed and substituted with 12 months’ home detention, subject to the special condition that the appellant undertake and complete the appropriate counselling and abide by the rules of the programme to the satisfaction of her probation officer. In addition, the appellant is sentenced to 100 hours’ community work.

Orders