Renes v The the Queen - [2022] NZSC 64

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 63/2021
[2022] NZSC 64

BETWEEN	SKYE AMBER RENES Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	W C Pyke for Applicant J E Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment:	20 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Ms Renes is a physiotherapist and a registered treatment provider under the accident compensation scheme. She was charged with a number of dishonesty charges related to her dealings with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and was convicted on three dishonesty charges.[1] She was sentenced to three months’ community work.[2]
[1]Ms Renes stood trial on 38 charges. She was discharged on 11 charges under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on three charges and acquitted on a further 21 charges.
[2]R v Renes [2020] NZDC 8784 (Judge de Ridder).
The charges on which Ms Renes was found guilty were:
(a)Charge 13 – charging fees for around 629 treatments provided by someone not qualified and not a registered ACC provider (laid as a representative charge).
(b)Charge 21 – charging fees for treatments under Katherine Spence’s provider ID that were not carried out by her (laid as a representative charge).
(c)Charge 37 – dishonestly and without claim of right using a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage. This related to Ms Renes filling out and submitting the registration form required for another physiotherapist, Mr Whale, to provide ACC treatments. It was alleged that she had forged his signature on the form.
Ms Renes seeks leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision dismissing her appeal against conviction.[3]

Grounds of appeal

[3]Renes v R [2021] NZCA 188 (Collins, Ellis and Muir JJ) [CA judgment].

For charges 13 and 21, Mr Renes submits that:
(a)The charges should not have been laid representatively and should have been broken up into smaller charges.
(b)The trial judge failed to give an unanimity direction.

The verdict on charges 13 and 21 were unreasonable and/or the trial was unfair, a ground not raised in the Court of Appeal – these submissions are based on the Crown not producing the relevant forms.

For charge 37, Ms Renes submits that the filing of the ACC24 form could not of itself bring a pecuniary advantage to her. It was mere preparation and meant the elements of the offence were not satisfied.[4] That in turn rendered the jury’s verdict unreasonable.

Court of Appeal decision

Charges 13 and 21

[4]Mr Whale was only employed by Ms Renes’ company for a week.

The issue with charges 13 and 21 was that the evidence at trial did not meet the assumptions when the charges were laid. The assumption in laying charge 13 was that Ms Renes was not present on any of the occasions on which treatments for which ACC payments were claimed were provided, but was…

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 Renes v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Renes v The the Queen [2022] NZSC 64
Case: [2022] NZSC 64
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skye Amber Renes sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's dismissal of her appeal against conviction for dishonesty charges related to her dealings with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). The Court of Appeal had dismissed Ms Renes' appeal against conviction on three charges of dishonesty, which included charging fees for treatments provided by someone not qualified and not a registered ACC provider, charging fees for treatments under another provider's ID that were not carried out by them, and using a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage by forging another physiotherapist's signature on an ACC registration form. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The Supreme Court considered Ms Renes' submissions that the charges should not have been laid representatively, that the trial judge failed to give an unanimity direction, and that the jury's verdict on charges 13 and 21 was unreasonable or the trial was unfair due to the Crown not producing the relevant forms. The Court also considered Ms Renes' argument that the filing of the ACC24 form could not bring a pecuniary advantage to her and that the jury's verdict on charge 37 was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court found that while it was not best practice to lay representative charges, the task of the defence would have been the same had the charges been split up and there was no prejudice to the defence from the representative charges. The Court also found that an unanimity direction should have been given in this case but that the jury's question to the Judge gave insight into the jury's reasons for finding Ms Renes guilty on charge 13 and that the most reasonable inference was that they were agreed as to proof of all the elements of the offences. The Court further found that there was intent on the part of Ms Renes to claim a pecuniary advantage by completing Mr Whale's registration form as a key step in being able to claim at a later date.

The Supreme Court accepted the Crown submission that there was no realistic prospect that a lack of a unanimity direction may have resulted in some jurors being satisfied of Ms Renes' guilt in respect of one or more of the false representations and some in respect of others. The Court also found that the applicant's submission that the verdicts were unreasonable or that the trial was unfair was not sufficiently arguable to justify the grant of leave on this point.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders