Reihana v Police - [2019] NZHC 2078

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2019-463-000066

[2019] NZHC 2078

BETWEEN
RHIANNON PAIGE REIHANA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 August 2019

Appearances:

L L Owen for the Appellant

G Banuelos for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Rotorua Counsel: L Owen, Owen Law Limited, Rotorua

REIHANA v NZ POLICE [2019] NZHC 2078 [22 August 2019]

[1] On 4 June 2019 in the Tokoroa District Court, Judge Hollister-Jones sentenced Rhiannon Paige Reihana to two years and two months’ imprisonment on the following charges:

(a)Accessing computer system for dishonest purposes;1

(b)Three counts of obtaining by deception (over $1,000);2

(c)two counts of obtaining by deception ($500 - $1,000);3

(d)two counts of obtaining by deception (under $500);4

(e) Theft ($500-$1,000);5

(f)Theft (under $500);6

(g)Intimidation;7

(h)Failing to answer bail.8

[2] Ms Reihana now appeals against sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

Facts

[3] The appellant obtained the user name and password of her grandmother’s internet bank account and made a total of 30 transfers, totalling $11,892, to her own account. The appellant also approached associates and asked to use their bank

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 249(1)(a); maximum penalty seven years' imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 240(1)(a); maximum penalty seven years' imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 240(1)(a); maximum penalty one year imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 240(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 219 and 223(c); maximum penalty one year imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment
7      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a); maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment or
$2000 fine.
8      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a); maximum penalty is one year imprisonment or $2000 fine.

accounts and ATM cards in exchange for a small amount of money. She made a further 30 transfers from her grandmother’s account to their accounts, totalling $7,435.

[4] On 17 December, the appellant got into a dispute with her neighbour and spoke threateningly and threatened violence.

[5] Whilst on bail, the appellant stole her grandmother’s purse, containing $50 cash and debit cards. The appellant used the cards to spend $74.69 at a petrol station and later $280.44 at a tavern. The appellant also took her grandmother’s chequebook and cashed some cheques to the value of $400. She also used her grandmother’s driver’s licence to make online applications for finance and got $3,843 from that. When staying with a friend, the appellant used her ASB card and obtained $631 from it.

District Court decision

[6] The Judge set a starting point of two years nine months’ imprisonment for the lead dishonesty offence (transferring the money from her grandmother’s bank account), based on the following aggravating factors:

(a)The breach of trust;

(b)Premeditation (shown by the repetitive offending);

(c)The scale of the offending;

(d)The impact on the victims, especially the appellant’s grandmother who would…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reihana v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 2078
Decision Date: 22 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rhiannon Paige Reihana appeals against the sentence imposed on her by the Tokoroa District Court. Ms Reihana had been sentenced to two years and two months’ imprisonment following a series of dishonesty-related offences. Ms Reihana submits that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the mitigating factors and guilty plea discounts were inadequate. The Crown submits that the sentence was appropriate and that the mitigating factors and guilty plea discounts were adequate. The High Court found that the starting point imposed by the District Court was too high and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court found that an appropriate starting point would have been 23 months’ imprisonment for the lead offence. The Court found that the mitigating factors and guilty plea discounts were adequate and that a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate. The Court found that home detention would be an appropriate alternative sentence and adjourned the matter to allow for the appellant to apply for the substitution of a sentence of home detention.

The Court of Appeal has provided guidelines for dishonesty offences, including the assessment of culpability by reference to the nature of the offending, its magnitude and sophistication; the type, circumstances and number of the victims; the motivation for the offending; the amounts involved; the losses; the period over which the offending occurred; the seriousness of breaches of trust involved; and the impact on victims. The Court found that the starting point imposed by the District Court was too high and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court found that the appellant’s offending was egregious and had severely affected her grandmother, but it was less sophisticated and involved fewer victims and less money than comparable cases. The Court found that the mitigating factors and guilty plea discounts were adequate and that a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate. The Court found that home detention would be an appropriate alternative sentence.

Orders