Richards v Police - [2018] NZHC 2288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CRI-2018-406-000005

[2018] NZHC 2288

BETWEEN
QUENTIN KYLE RICHARDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 31 August 2018 (via AVL at Wellington)

Counsel:

R A Harrison for Appellant S J Revell for Respondent

Judgment:

31 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Richards was sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment for theft in a special relationship1 on 30 April 2018 by Judge Zohrab at the District Court at Blenheim.2 Mr Richards appeals against his sentence on the grounds that an inadequate discount was made for reparation payments offered by Mr Richards. A lump sum reparation of
$48,000 has now been offered.

Background

[2] Mr Richards was previously employed as a sales manager by a firm in Christchurch (the business) that makes benchtop furniture. Between December 2015 and February 2017, Mr Richards regularly commissioned marble benchtop furniture

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 220(1)(a) and 223(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Police v Richards [2018] NZDC 8395.

RICHARDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2288 [31 August 2018]

without authorisation and sold it for personal gain. He also doctored paperwork to cover up his offending.

[3] In February 2017, the owner of the business discovered that Mr Richards had altered some paperwork in relation to one of these transactions, worth $2,000. He confronted Mr Richards, who initially denied the offending. However, after the business owner presented Mr Richards with video footage of him stealing the benchtop, he confessed, but he said it had only happened on one occasion. Mr Richards explained his offending by reference to debts that he supposedly owed. However, when the business owner requested documentation confirming this story, Mr Richards came up with various excuses why he could not present the documents. Mr Richards even staged a break-in to his own vehicle to support a story that the documents had been stolen.

[4] This aroused the suspicions of the business owner, so he carried out the laborious task of checking through historical documentation and video footage, and checking with past clients, to establish whether or not there had been further instances of theft. The total amount discovered to be involved was approximately $50,000, although the business owner was only able to search back about one year (Mr Richards had been employed at the firm for seven years).

[5] The business employs seven staff, and can properly be described as a small enterprise. The loss of this amount of money, along with the substantial time investments spent investigating Mr Richards’ theft, has had a significant impact on the business.

District Court decision

[6] Judge Zohrab adopted a starting point of 20 months’ imprisonment, based on the amount stolen, the significance of the financial loss to the business, the scale of the offending and the breach of trust involved. Judge Zohrab uplifted the starting point by three months to reflect Mr Richards’ previous conviction for theft in a special relationship.

[7]…

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 Richards v Police

Details

AGLC: Richards v Police [2018] NZHC 2288
Case: [2018] NZHC 2288
Decision Date: 31 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quentin Kyle Richards was sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment for theft in a special relationship by the District Court at Blenheim. Richards appeals against his sentence on the grounds that an inadequate discount was made for reparation payments offered by Richards. A lump sum reparation of $48,000 has now been offered. The sole issue on appeal was whether or not the offer to make a lump sum reparation payment of $48,000 renders it necessary to change the sentence of imprisonment imposed by Judge Zohrab. The court found that a different sentence should be imposed, and that the offer to make full reparation paid by Richards was commendable and deserved to be recognised by an appropriate discount. However, the court considered that community detention was not appropriate given the scale of the offending and the fact this was the second time Richards had committed this type of offence. The court substituted Richards' sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment with a sentence of six and a half months’ home detention, and quashed the order to pay $30,000 in reparation over five years, substituting it with an order to immediately pay $48,000 by way of reparation.

Orders