Shepherd v Police - [2018] NZHC 1167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2018-488-12

[2018] NZHC 1167

BETWEEN
TODDY SHEPHERD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 May 2018

Appearances:

R Parangi for the Appellant M Smith for the Respondent

Mr Dinsdale, Chief Reporter, Northern Advocate

Judgment:

23 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 May 2018 at 11.00 am, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
R Parangi, Kaitaia

Copy to: Mr Dinsdale, Northern Advocate

SHEPHERD v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1167 [23 May 2018]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Toddy Shepherd, faces six representative charges of theft by a person in a special relationship1 and a single charge of obtaining by deception.2

[2] In the District Court at Kaitaia on 29 March 2018, Judge McDonald refused Ms Shepherd’s application for name suppression.3

[3] The grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal are that publication of her name would cause extreme hardship to her current employer, the He Korowai Trust (the Trust); that publication would cast suspicion on people associated with the Trust which would result in undue hardship for them; and that publication would cause extreme hardship to her two teenage daughters.4

[4]The Crown opposes the appeal and submits it should be dismissed.

Alleged factual background

[5] I take the allegations from the police summary of facts which was before Judge McDonald. In May 2012, Ms Shepherd was employed by CCS Disability Action as a regional manager of the Hononga Rawhiti region.

[6] As her position covered a large area of the North Island, there were provisions in her contract for travel, accommodation and other associated costs. These provisions excluded costs for accommodation and other expenses within Ms Shepherd’s home area, listed as Hawkes Bay.

[7] In the first year of her employment, a provision of $1,500 total costs was allocated to travel for Ms Shepherd where receipts were provided. In the second year, this was changed to $250 per month. In the third year, this was changed again to
$5,000 total costs for the year.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 220(2).
2      Section 240(1)(a).
3      New Zealand Police v Shepherd [2018] NZDC 6400.
4      Refer further at [38] and [61] below for correct test.

[8] In her position as regional manager, Ms Shepherd was required to have full knowledge of financial policies which covered the use of company credit cards. The statements from any credit cards were required to be signed off by either the Chief Executive or board members.

[9] In 2013, CCS Disability Action changed its auditing system from having each branch audited through separate firms to a single firm which audited the whole company. It had been noted to the Chief Executive that there was a high level of expenditure for travel and accommodation. He asked that the audit process pay particular attention to this.

[10] The audit identified a high level…

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 Shepherd v Police

Details

AGLC: Shepherd v Police [2018] NZHC 1167
Case: [2018] NZHC 1167
Decision Date: 23 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toddy Shepherd appeals against the decision of the District Court at Kaitaia, which refused her application for name suppression. The District Court held that publication of her name would not cause extreme hardship to her employer, the He Korowai Trust (the Trust), and would not cast suspicion on people associated with the Trust that may cause undue hardship to them. Shepherd argues that publication of her name would cause extreme hardship to the Trust, and would cast suspicion on people associated with the Trust that may cause undue hardship to them. The Crown opposes the appeal and submits it should be dismissed. The court first considers whether the fresh evidence in the affidavit of Ricky Houghton, the Chief Executive of the Trust, should be admitted. It holds that the evidence is not fresh and could have been produced in the District Court. However, in the interests of justice, the court admits the evidence. The court then considers whether the District Court erred in concluding that Shepherd had not established that publication is likely to cause extreme hardship to the Trust. The court holds that the District Court was correct in concluding that the Trust had not established that publication is likely to cause extreme hardship to it. The court also considers whether the District Court erred in confining its consideration to the grounds in s 200(2)(a). It holds that the District Court was correct in concluding that the Trust had not established that publication is likely to cast suspicion that may cause undue hardship. The appeal against the refusal to grant name suppression is dismissed.

Orders