Stevens v The King - [2023] NZHC 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-87

[2023] NZHC 2021

UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against sentence

BETWEEN

MATTHEW IAN STEVENS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 27 July 2023

Appearances:

D I Brown, C R Shaw for the appellant S J Mallett for the respondent

Judgment:

1 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

Appeal against sentence

[1] Matthew Ian Stevens was from September 2013 an employee, becoming a trusted senior manager, of two Christchurch companies. Mr Stevens, in a series of sustained and complex schemes involving forgery and other deceptions, fraudulently and/or dishonestly obtained $152,303.75 at the expense of his employers. Other substantial losses incurred by his employers through elements of his offending, such as the manipulation of stock movements and the time and cost of the lengthy unravelling of his activities, are unquantified.

STEVENS v R [2023] NZHC 2021 [1 August 2023]

[2] Mr Stevens pleaded guilty to one charge of obtaining by deception,1 four charges of altering a document,2 four charges of using an altered document,3 one charge of theft by a personal in a special relationship4 and one charge of forgery,5 all charges but the forgery charge being representative.

[3] Mr Stevens was sentenced to 23 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay reparation (for emotional harm) in the sum of $52,000 (the decision).6 The Judge declined Mr Stevens’ request that the period of imprisonment be converted to a sentence of home detention, identifying the “clear need for denunciation”.7

[4]Mr Stevens appeals the sentence.

Facts

[5] Mr Stevens’ employment at the victim’s business lasted from September 2013 to May 2018, when he was dismissed upon the discovery of his frauds. Until then he had been a member of the senior management team, with between two and five employees reporting to him directly.

[6] Mr Stevens falsified 124 false part callouts, entitling him to a fee of $100 per call out. Mr Stevens gained a pecuniary advantage of $12,400 in this manner. Mr Stevens also set up a false company purportedly based in Los Angeles. Mr Stevens created fake invoices and sent them to the victim’s company, with payment made to a PayPal account operated by him. He would then disburse the funds to his personal account. Mr Stevens received $62,000 in this manner.

[7] Mr Stevens altered invoices from a legitimate supplier, sent false invoices through the victim’s company and processed payments via the intermediary PayPal, receiving payment of $39,000 for these invoices. There were two further charges relating to invoice alteration from which Mr Stevens received $23,000. Mr Stevens

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1)(a), 241(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 258(1)(a); maximum penalty ten years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 259(1)(a); maximum penalty ten years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 220 and 223(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 256(2); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
6      R v Stevens [2023] NZDC 10119 [Decision].
7      At [30]–[31].

also altered…

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 Stevens v The King

Details

AGLC: Stevens v The King [2023] NZHC 2021
Case: [2023] NZHC 2021
Decision Date: 1 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Ian Stevens appeals against his sentence, contending the sentencing judge erred by not appropriately considering home detention. Stevens was sentenced to 23 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay reparation of $52,000. The sentencing judge declined to convert the sentence to home detention, finding the need for denunciation too strong to warrant such a sentence. Stevens argues the judge placed undue emphasis on the need for denunciation, failing to adequately weigh the mitigating factors in his case, including his guilty pleas, remorse, and psychological condition. The Crown contends the judge's sentence was appropriate and there was no error in principle.

The court agrees with Stevens, finding the judge erred in principle by not undertaking a distinct second-stage analysis of home detention. The court weighs the mitigating factors in Stevens' case, including his guilty pleas, remorse, and psychological evidence, against the seriousness of his offending and the impact on the victims. The court concludes that, while none of these factors alone would justify home detention, taken together they render it the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances. The court imposes a sentence of nine months' home detention, taking into account Stevens' time already spent in custody. The appeal is allowed, the sentence of imprisonment is cancelled, and a sentence of nine months' home detention is substituted with specific conditions.

Orders