R v Suttie - [2007] NZCA 201

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA60/07
[2007] NZCA 201
THE QUEEN
v
DOREEN DAISY GEOK TIN SUTTIE
Hearing:21 May 2007

Court:William Young P, Baragwanath and Heath JJ
Counsel:J H M Eaton for the Appellant

M A Treleaven for the Crown

Judgment:24 May 2007 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by William Young P)
Introduction
[1]       On 7 February this year, the appellant appeared for sentence before Judge MacAskill in the District Court at Christchurch on five charges of fraud and theft. She had earlier pleaded guilty. The Judge sentenced her to a total of two and a half years imprisonment and declined to make a final order suppressing publication of her name.
[2]       She now appeals to this Court challenging the length of the sentence and the refusal of the suppression order.
Factual background
[3]       The appellant is now 66. She comes from Singapore and has lived in New Zealand since 1972. She has six children and no previous convictions.
[4]       The appellant ran New Zealand Student Services Ltd which provided homestay and guardianship services for Japanese students in New Zealand. Her offending was in relation to two sisters, Hitomi and Yu and a third young person, Mutsumi.
[5]       Between 1997 and 2003, the family of Hitomi and Yu sent the appellant $662,969. This was to cover the expenses associated with study, living and accommodation for the girls and was paid on the basis that money not spent in this way was to be placed with a bank. The interest earned on the bank deposits came to $129,845. So the total received was $792,814. Of this money, the appellant misapplied (for the benefit of herself and others) approximately $503,000.
[6]       There was a broadly similar pattern of events in relation to Mutsumi. The appellant received $211,789.96 from her parents to meet education and living expenses. The appellant in effect stole all of this money. But she subsequently met expenses associated with Mutsumi to a point where Mutsumi’s family can fairly be regarded as out of pocket by only $67,000. Some of these expenses were funded by money which had been initially provided by and then stolen from the family of Hitomi and Yu, money which is included in the $503,000 to which we have already referred.
[7]       In order to deflect inquiries about the money from the two families, the appellant was required to engage in a pattern of lies and to some extent manipulation of bank accounts.
[8]       The consequences of the offending on the victims were significant. There has been and can be no reparation.
[9]       In the case of the money sent in respect of Hitomi and Yu, the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts: one of using documents fraudulently contrary to s 229A of the Crimes Act 1961 and two of theft by failing to account contrary to s 224 of the Crimes Act. In respect of the offending in relation to Mutsumi,…

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 R v Suttie

Details

AGLC: R v Suttie [2007] NZCA 201
Case: [2007] NZCA 201
Decision Date: 24 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Doreen Daisy Geok Tin Suttie appeals against her conviction and sentence for fraud and theft. Suttie, a 66-year-old woman from Singapore, had lived in New Zealand since 1972 and had no previous convictions. She operated New Zealand Student Services Ltd, which provided homestay and guardianship services for Japanese students in New Zealand. Suttie misappropriated approximately $503,000 from two sisters, Hitomi and Yu, and another young person, Mutsumi, between 1997 and 2003. She pleaded guilty to five charges of fraud and theft and was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment, with the judge declining to make a final order suppressing publication of her name.

The court considered three issues in this appeal: the starting point of the sentence, the discount for mitigating factors, and the judge's treatment of the offer of reparation. The court found that the starting point of four years and four months was appropriate, as the case was similar to R v Staples in terms of the amount stolen, the period of time over which the offending occurred, the elements of deception, the impact on victims, and the level of premeditation. The court also found that the judge's approach to the discount for mitigating factors was acceptable, as the overall 42% discount allowed for the appellant's age, psychiatric difficulties, and high level of anxiety about imprisonment and publicity.

The court further found that the judge's treatment of the offer of reparation was appropriate, as the victims were out of pocket by approximately $570,000, and there was no realistic prospect of any repayment. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the available range, and the appeal was dismissed. The court also found no error in the judge's refusal to order name suppression, as the seriousness of the offending and the principle of open justice outweighed the appellant's mental health concerns.

Orders