Steer v Police - [2016] NZHC 877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-470-8 [2016] NZHC 877

BETWEEN
MICHELLE ILENE STEER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:
3 May 2016

(Heard at ROTORUA)

Appearances:

W T Nabney for Appellant
N T C Batts for Respondent

Judgment:

4 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 May 2016 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

STEER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 877 [4 May 2016]

[1] Ms Steer pleaded guilty in the District Court to 15 charges of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage and one charge of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.1 On 18 March 2016, Judge Coyle sentenced Ms Steer to concurrent sentences of 16 months imprisonment on all charges.2

[2] Ms Steer appeals against sentence. She contends that the Judge ought to have sentenced her to home detention rather than imprisonment.

The offending

[3] From mid-November 2005 to 12 April 2015 Ms Steer was in receipt of various benefits under the Social Security Act 1964. She commenced living with her partner in March 2008, but failed to advise the Ministry of Social Development of that fact in forms that she filled in thereafter. Had she advised the Ministry that she was living with her partner, her entitlement to the benefits would have terminated. Ms Steer received overpayments totalling $143,634.90 as a result of her fraudulent conduct.

The sentence

[4] The Judge fixed a starting point of 24 months to reflect Ms Steer’s overall culpability. He applied a discount of four months to reflect mental health issues that also form the basis of the present appeal. This produced a provisional sentence of 20 months imprisonment before taking into account guilty pleas. The Judge applied a discount of four months, or 20 per cent, to reflect this factor. This produced the end sentence of 16 months imprisonment.

[5] The Judge declined to convert the end sentence to a sentence of home
detention. That aspect of the Judge’s sentencing decision is the sole issue on the present appeal.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 228(b) and 240(1)(a).
2 Ministry of Social Development v Steer [2015] NZDC 4749.

Admission of fresh evidence on appeal

[6] Ms Steer has applied for an order that she be permitted to file an affidavit dated 29 April 2016 in support of her appeal. This relates to events that have occurred since she began serving her prison sentence. Although the Crown opposes admission of the evidence, I am satisfied that it should be admitted in the interests of justice. The reasons for this will become obvious during the course of the judgment.

The argument on appeal

[7] Mr Nabney submits that the Judge failed to give adequate weight to the fact that a sentence of home detention is a deterrent sentence. He submits that, had the Judge given this factor adequate weight, he would inevitably have come to the…

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 Steer v Police

Details

AGLC: Steer v Police [2016] NZHC 877
Case: [2016] NZHC 877
Decision Date: 4 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michelle Steer appeals against her sentence for using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. The offending began in November 2005 and continued until April 2015. During that time, Steer obtained over $143,000 in benefits to which she was not entitled because she failed to report that she was living with her partner. Steer argues that the District Court Judge should have sentenced her to home detention rather than 16 months imprisonment. The High Court is required to determine whether the District Court Judge erred in concluding that home detention would not meet the sentencing purposes of denunciation and deterrence, and whether the Judge erred in concluding that Steer's health issues could be adequately managed within a prison environment. The High Court found that the Judge's exercise of discretion was orthodox and there was no evidence that Steer's health issues would be better addressed by serving a sentence of home detention rather than a term of imprisonment. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders