R v Drake [2016] NZDC 7545 (3 May 2016)

Last Updated: 11 November 2016

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

CRI-2015-009-004537 [2016] NZDC 7545

THE QUEEN

v

_{LETICIA MARGARET DRAKE}

Hearing:	3 May 2016
Appearances:	K South for the Crown P Johnson for the Defendant
Judgment:	3 May 2016

_{NOTES OF JUDGE R E NEAVE ON SENTENCING}

[1] Ms Drake is for sentence on 15 charges of using a document or obtaining by deception in relation to benefits obtained by her from the Ministry of Social Development. This offending stretches back to January 2000 and has lasted, as Ms South points out, for over 15 years. Effectively over that period, benefits continued to be obtained by the defendant notwithstanding that she was both in employment and also in a relationship in the nature of marriage, both of which were factors which needed to be disclosed and would have affected her entitlement to benefits. There have clearly been repeated failures to disclose this information over a lengthy period of time. The total amounts obtained are said to be in excess of

$185,000.

[2] The defendant has previous history of dishonesty. In 1999 there was offending of using a document which resulted in periodic detention imposed in

R v LETICIA MARGARET DRAKE [2016] NZDC 7545 [3 May 2016]

June 2000 and that was offending, I suspect, of a similar nature which stretched back over a period of about three years.

[3] The pre-sentence report indicates that there is a significant problem with gambling and poor decision making. That is putting it mildly. Mr Johnson, I think appropriately, lays the genesis of this offending on a gambling problem, although I suspect that there may well have been other issues as well, but this is behaviour that has bedevilled the defendant all of her adult life and she seems to have been a somewhat slow learner as to the undesirability of fuelling this behaviour by access to money which is not hers.

[4] I conducted a sentencing indication hearing in which both the Crown and the defence quite properly achieved a measure of agreement as to the starting point of the offending. Ms South’s submissions characterise the offending as chronic and habitual repetition of dishonesty and remind me that the number of deliberate acts is relevant and clearly there are numerous acts here.

[5] Reference was had in the Crown’s submissions to a number of other cases, all of which seem to be rather less serious than the present case. The closest is Ransom v R [2010] NZCA 390, (2010) 25 CRNZ 163 which involved $127,000 worth of dishonesty over a 10 year period. Because of the particular circumstances of that defendant, home detention was the net result. There were numerous credits which were available there which do not apply in the present case. As well as the repetitive acts of dishonesty there were numerous occasions in which the defendant was interviewed by the Ministry and did her best to cover up the fact that she was in a relationship in the nature of marriage as well as working and she continued on her merry way in obtaining funds to which she was not entitled.

[6] It is also relevant that there was a history of previous convictions clearly for very similar offending which cannot be ignored. The amount obtained is substantial and both Mr Johnson and Ms South submitted that a starting point of three and a half to four years is appropriate and I agree. I propose to adopt the starting point of three and a half years.

[7] The defendant is entitled to credit for her plea of guilty but it did come somewhat late in the piece and the defendant, I think, has rather stuck her head in the sand for a long period of time and has struggled to come to grips with her responsibility but she has now accepted it. I think 15 percent given the lateness of it is an appropriate figure.

[8] I think she is also entitled to some modest credit because there is a prospect of reduction of the outstanding debt either in terms of payments she has already been making as well as the prospect, and I place it no higher than that, that civil recovery proceedings in the High Court may yield some funds in reduction of her debt, and I also imagine that upon her release, the Department will continue to pursue her for any outstanding amounts. So from the three and a half years which is 42 months imprisonment I will give her three months credit for the prospect of reparation which brings me down to 39 months, 15 percent of that largely because I am not going to get too complicated with the maths, is six months imprisonment. That brings me down to 33 months and that is the sentence of the Court on each of these charges.

[9] The defendant is convicted and sentenced to two years, nine months imprisonment.

R E Neave

District Court Judge