Wood v Police - [2014] NZHC 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-043-003035 [2014] NZHC 187

UNDER the Summary Proceedings Act 1957

IN THE MATTER of an appeal against conviction pursuant to Section 115 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957

BETWEEN DIANNE LESLIE WOOD Appellant

ANDTHE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 February 2014

Appearances: JM Woodcock for Appellant
AWM Britton for Respondent

Judgment: 18 February 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

WOOD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 187 [18 February 2014]

Introduction

[1] On 9 August 2013, the appellant, Ms Wood, was found guilty by Judge

Roberts in the District Court at New Plymouth on one charge of obtaining credit of

$200,000 by deception. On 28 November 2013, the appellant was sentenced to undertake 125 hours’ community work, after the Judge was satisfied that she had repaid the total debt of $262,000 which included default interest.

[2] The appellant now appeals her conviction. Ms Woodcock acknowledges for the purposes of the appeal that the District Court Judge was entitled to find the appellant had knowingly made a false representation that a court order had been made requiring her to buy out her former partner’s interest in her home. She submits, however, the Judge erred in finding there was a causal connection between the false representation and the credit obtained by the appellant from the complainant.

Brief summary of factual circumstances

[3] The appellant met the complainant in this case, Ms Harris, through her work in New Plymouth as a self-described “Life Coach”. Ms Harris had recently been divorced and sought counselling or coaching to help her through a difficult period of her life. The services provided by the appellant apparently went well beyond mere counselling as she also provided business advice and natural health remedies to her clients. In this case, it seems the appellant also provided some legal assistance and took over the sale of Ms Harris’s property. In the course of providing these services, the appellant came to learn that Ms Harris had received a substantial amount of money following her separation from her husband.

[4] It is accepted for the purposes of this appeal that the appellant asked Ms Harris to lend her money which the appellant claimed she needed to buy out her own former partner’s interest in her house and to renovate the property for sale. The appellant applied substantial pressure to Ms Harris and initially persuaded the complainant to lend her around $500,000, that sum to be derived both from personal funds and from a family trust of which Ms Harris was a beneficiary. Although

Ms Harris wished to lend the appellant that large sum, despite being advised not to do so by her solicitor, that loan was not made because the trustee refused to allow part of the funds to be advanced by the family trust.

[5] On 14 December 2010, the appellant received a letter informing her that if she was not prepared to sell the property which she owned with her…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wood v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 187
Decision Date: 18 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dianne Leslie Wood appealed against her conviction of obtaining credit by deception, as found by Judge Roberts in the District Court at New Plymouth on one charge of obtaining credit of $200,000 by deception. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court of New Zealand. Ms Woodcock, on behalf of the appellant, acknowledged that the District Court Judge was entitled to find that Ms Wood knowingly made a false representation that a court order had been made requiring her to buy out her former partner’s interest in her home. However, she submitted that the Judge erred in finding there was a causal connection between the false representation and the credit obtained by the appellant from the complainant. Ms Woodcock argued that the false representation was irrelevant as it made no difference to the course of Ms Harris's actions, as she was already trying to find a way to make the advance. Mr Britton, on behalf of the respondent, referred to the observations of the Court in Morley that a false representation need not be the only operative factor in the deception, so long as it played a material part in occasioning the loss or, as in this case, the obtaining of credit by the defendant. The Judge in this case was entitled to accept as credible and reliable the complainant’s evidence that she would not have made the loan if it had not been for the lie about the court order. The court found that the Judge was entitled to make credibility findings in favour of the complainant. The appellant's deliberate pressure on the complainant to make the advance culminated with the unequivocal but false text messages about the making of the court order. The Judge was entitled to accept the complainant’s evidence that the unforgivable and outrageous attempt by the appellant to hold the complainant responsible for the appellant’s position was an operative factor in her decision to advance money in mid-January 2011. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders