THE QUEEN v RAEWYN TE AROHA HEMARA [1999] NZCA 254 (4 November 1999)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

ca331/99

THE QUEEN

V

RAEWYN TE AROHA HEMARA

Coram:	Gault J Keith J Blanchard J
Judgment (ex parte):	4 November 1999

judgment of the court DELIVERED BY KEITH J

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to 10 representative charges of using a document with intent to defraud. She was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on those matters and ordered to pay reparation of $4,000, the payments to begin after her release from prison.She also pleaded guilty after committal for trial on one count of perverting the course of justice. On that charge she was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. She now appeals against sentence. The appellant was refused legal aid by the Registrar after consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Act 1991. She was invited to make written submissions, and the information she has provided has been taken into account in considering her appeal.

[2] The charges of using a document relate to 51 cheques presented by the appellant between 2 November 1998 and 7 January 1999. The cheques were drawn upon two bank accounts, one of which had been closed in July 1997 due to abuse by the appellant. She had been advised of this closure again in August 1998. The amount of the cheques drawn on this account was $3,631.82. The other account was extensively overdrawn. The appellant had last deposited money into it on 24 November 1998. The total of the cheques drawn on this account was $9,226.23. The appellant also amassed fees of $4,697 during this time.The reparation sought totalled $17,555.05.

[3] The charge of perverting the course of justice relates to an incident which occurred on 1 July 1992. The appellant was stopped by Police while driving a car and gave a false name, address, and date of birth. Her breath alcohol was over the legal limit. The appellant attended the Wellington District Court on 10 July 1992 and pleaded guilty to the excess breath alcohol charge, under the false name, which was her sister's. The deception was discovered when the sister herself was dealt with for excess breath alcohol on 23 January 1998.

[4] The ground of appeal is that the sentence of imprisonment imposed was manifestly excessive and inappropriate. It was submitted that insufficient weight was given to the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The material provided by the appellant in relation to the appeal constitutes information and documents which have been put together as a community package, with the support of her care-giver, as a rehabilitation program for the appellant.

[5] There is evidence of her mental and physical health problems around the time of the offending. Also included is evidence of difficulties the appellant had been having with a violent ex-boyfriend, including a Protection Order she had obtained. There is also correspondence from various support organisations the appellant has been having dealings with, and documentation relating to an apology to her sister which the appellant had published in the newspaper. The appellant submitted that a suspended sentence coupled with ongoing counselling and a scheme for reparation would be more appropriate.

[6] We agree with the sentencing judge that a custodial sentence was required. It is also clear from the appellant's financial position that substantial reparation is not a realistic prospect. The appellant has an extensive record of similar offending in the past, with 88 convictions for dishonesty between 1980 and 1995. She has breached supervision twice, once in 1984 and again in 1994. She has also breached periodic detention on a number of occasions; in 1984, 1988, and twice in 1991. The appellant has continued to reoffend. Nothing has been submitted to the Court which is sufficient to suggest that her prospects of rehabilitation are any greater now than they have been in the past. This is also not a case for which suspension is available.

[7] The appeal is accordingly dismissed.