Ministry of Social Development v Dodunski [2022] NZDC 9060 (17 May 2022)

Last Updated: 31 January 2023

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ALEXANDRA I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI MANUHEREKIA

CRI-2020-055-002000

[2022] NZDC 9060

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Prosecutor v

JOANNE MARIE DODUNSKI Defendant

Hearing:	17 May 2022
Appearances:	R McDonald for the Prosecutor S Larkin for the Defendant
Judgment:	17 May 2022

NOTES OF JUDGE M B T TURNER ON SENTENCING

Charges

[1] Joanne Dodunski, aged 37 years, is for sentence this morning having pleaded guilty to 12 charges of accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose. The charge carries a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] The summary of facts is not disputed. In short, Ms Dodunski was employed as a case manager and reception insight controller at the Papakura office of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). Her role as a case manager authorised her to

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v JOANNE MARIE DODUNSKI [2022] NZDC 9060

process payments for beneficiaries. Effectively there were two types of payments. First, special needs grants where a beneficiary would receive a lump sum which was not required to be repaid. The second type was a renewable assistance payment which would be added to the beneficiary’s account to be repaid over a period of time.

[3] Over a 16 month period, the defendant dishonestly accessed the MSD’s computer system and using her ability to authorise payments, made payments into her bank accounts or to suppliers directly to meet expenses incurred in her name. Twelve beneficiary accounts were affected - friends of the defendant or her neighbours and in some cases, were person unknown to her.

[4] The total amount involved was $26,090.88. There has been no repayment but the beneficiaries’ accounts have been corrected. There is, however, a loss to the State, to every taxpayer in this country from whom Ms Dodunski has stolen.

[5] The explanation for her offending is this. Her husband, with whom she still resides, lost his job. The defendant then became the sole income earner for the family. Finances were tight in the household. The defendant was also the main caregiver for the children in the house, twins aged two to three years at the time. This exhausted Ms Dodunski. She was offered methamphetamine which she said that this gave her energy. She claimed, however, she did not take methamphetamine while working at MSD but only at home. Her wages were spent on this drug and the money stolen was to pay household debts.

[6] I immediately observe that there is no evidence of drug use other than self-reporting which I must disregard as a mitigating factor in those circumstances.

[7] Ms Dodunski, however, has no previous convictions.

Submissions and adjustments

[8] I have read the submissions filed by the informant and on Ms Dodunski’s behalf. I accept counsels’ submissions that there are a number of aggravating features:

• (a) first and foremost, the huge breach of trust which was reposed in Ms Dodunski;
  
• (b) planning and sophistication, fraudulent applications were prepared which she then processed;
  
• (c) the duration of the offending, one year and four months;
  
• (d) the number of persons who were directly affected, the beneficiaries, 12 including friends, neighbours and others; and
  
• (e) finally, the amount involved, just over $26,000.
  

[9] Having regard to the authorities referred to, I adopt a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment.

[10] In terms of adjustments, there are no previous convictions so there is no uplift. Mitigating factors include Ms Dodunski’s plea. She initially pleaded not guilty so her pleas of guilty were not entered at the earliest opportunity. A reduced discount is available, 20 per cent in my view. Ms Dodunski does have a lack of previous convictions but her offending spans 16 months, was repetitive, and involved calculated offending. The authorities count against allowing a discount for good character in those circumstances.

[11] Reference is made to the offending being driven by a methamphetamine addiction, or at least methamphetamine use, but it is self-reported and the Court of Appeal in Zhang v R makes it clear that self-reporting is not sufficient.1 No credit is available. There is no additional remorse over that inherent in the guilty plea. There

1 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507.

is an offer of reparation, $800 today and the balance at $40 per week. Presently, as I understand it, Ms Dodunski is not working.

Home detention?

[12] When those credits are brought into account, the end sentence would be 18 months’ imprisonment. I must consider whether the sentence should be commuted to home detention.

[13] On the one hand, this was sophisticated, deliberate, calculated and lengthy offending involving public funds, although that factor in itself is not relevant. There is no repayment at this point.

[14] On the other hand, the defendant has no previous convictions. An address is available. There was some doubt about that because of coverage in the kitchen area, but this morning Probation advises me that a change in their system will permit Ms Dodunski to be monitored electronically in all relevant areas of the property.

[15] I am persuaded in those circumstances to commute the sentence to home detention.

Result

[16] On each charge, Ms Dodunski is convicted and sentenced to nine months’ home detention. The residence is [deleted] in Lindis Valley. You are subject to standard conditions and standard post-detention and special post-detention conditions for six months after the detention end date. The special conditions are currently described as intensive supervision conditions, but they will be the home detention conditions.

[17] You are to pay reparation of $26,090 by a lump sum payment of $800 due by 4 o'clock today, and the balance is to be paid at $40 per week with the first payment due one week from today, on 24 May 2022. I know it will take more than five years to repay, but one would hope that Ms Dodunski will have employment and be able to

repay the State the money she has wrongfully taken from it. I have factored that into the consideration for home detention.

Judge MBT Turner

District Court Judge | Kaiwhakawā o te Kōti ā-Rohe

Date of authentication | Rā motuhēhēnga: 24/05/2022