Ministry of Social Development v Cooper [2017] NZDC 28693 (30 November 2017)

Last Updated: 30 August 2018

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS].

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRES(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MASTERTON

CRI-2017-035-000666

[2017] NZDC 28693

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Prosecutor v

[LAUREN COOPER] Defendant

Hearing:	30 November 2017
Appearances:	N Self for the Prosecutor V Pearson for the Defendant
Judgment:	30 November 2017

NOTES OF JUDGE B DAVIDSON ON SENTENCING

[1] Ms [Cooper], you appear for sentence on related charges of obtaining by deception and using a document.

[2] You were granted a domestic purposes benefit in [date deleted]. Two years later, in [date deleted] , you began to live in a de facto relationship, and over the next 6 years you obtained $104,037.10 to which you were not entitled. During this period, you made 4 false declarations as to your living circumstances.

[3] Reparation is not sought, as you have been repaying the debt voluntarily at $30 per week since March 2017.

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v [LAUREN COOPER] [2017] NZDC 28693 [30 November 2017]

[4] You are aged [age deleted] and you have no previous convictions. You live with your partner and [number of children deleted] children. There are concerns in respect of the [number deleted] children, particularly the youngest, both of whom are still at school, should there be adverse publicity.

[5] You have , [details of employment deleted]. [Your employment] would almost inevitably be lost if you were sentenced to home detention.

[6] There has been a tendency on your part to minimise the offending. I will come back to that in a moment, because there is an aspect of that worthy of mention.

[7] You seek a final order for suppression of your name, arguing that publication of your name would be likely to cause extreme hardship to your youngest [child]. There is material, both from [the child’s] paediatrician and the principal of [the child’s] school, as todetails deleted] that [the child] suffers from and the likely impact of media attention on [the child].

[8] The aggravating features of your offending are self-evident. The amount involved is significant, exceeding $100,000. The offending occurred over a period of nearly 6 years. During this period there was deception by you, and the trust relationship inherent in the benefit system has been abused.

[9] As has been said repeatedly, this simply amounts to straight-out theft from the community.

[10] By way of mitigation, you can point to your pleas of guilty and your lack of convictions; although, of course, that feature is tempered somewhat by the fact the offending occurred over such a long period.

[11] The prosecution submit that given the amount involved, the deception, and the period of the offending, that imprisonment with a starting point of at least 2 years would be appropriate. For the prosecution, Ms Self submits that to step down the sentencing hierarchy ladder as far as community detention would not be warranted, given those features.

[12] The prosecution oppose a final order for suppression of your name, arguing that the requisite threshold has not been met.

[13] Your counsel submits the starting point could be somewhat less but that after credit for the various mitigating features, the way would be open for a sentence of community detention, primarily to preserve your employment, to keep the household afloat financially, and to meet your reparation commitment.

[14] As I said a moment ago, the amount involved is considerable; the period of the offending, equally, is considerable. The only real feature that I can see that mitigates your offending in itself is that I am sure your de facto partner benefitted as much as you, and he is simply not before the court.

[15] The starting point that I would adopt is imprisonment of 21 months. That reflects the amount involved and the period of the offending.

[16] The first discount would be for a period of 3 months, recognising your lack of previous convictions. That is tempered somewhat, as I have said, by the period of the offending.

[17] You should also be entitled to credit for your commitment to reparation, and of course, a full discount for your plea of guilty.

[18] Any end sentence of imprisonment would sit at around 1 year.

[19] In usual circumstances, that should be commuted to home detention. But in my view, there is force in the submission made on your behalf that home detention would inevitably lead to the loss of your employment. That, inevitably, would have adverse consequences for you and the financial position of your family.

[20] For that reason and that reason alone I will impose community detention coupled with some community work.

[21] Ms [Cooper], on each of the charges you will be sentenced as follows.

[22] Firstly, to community detention for a period of 6 months. The curfew under the sentence will commence [date deleted]. Under the sentence, you are curfewed to the address of [address deleted], between the following hours:

• (a) [Community detention hours deleted]
  

[23] On each of those charges you are also sentenced to complete 120 hours’ community work.

[24] In the circumstances, there is a final order for suppression of your name. On the material before me, I am satisfied that publication of your name and any details likely to lead to your identification would be likely to cause extreme hardship to a person connected to you; that is, your youngest [child].

B Davidson

District Court Judge