On appeal, Mathew Ian Stevens’ 23 month jail term for a $152,000 Christchurch fraud was reduced to home detention on account of his early guilty plea, likelihood of not re-offending and his agreement to pay $52,000 for the emotional harm caused former employers Adam and Michelle Wright.
The Wrights were devastated to learn of Stevens multiple frauds. They said his manipulation of accounting data and presentation of false cashflow forecasts led to ruinous business decisions, ultimately leading to sale of their business.
His frauds covered a five year period, during which time the 46 year old rose to become senior manager. He booked false callouts, pocketing the call-out fee ($12,400); created fake invoices from a fictitious company supposedly based in Los Angeles ($62,000); altered invoices from legitimate suppliers ($62,000); overstated personal expenses for business trips ($13,000); and sold company stock on his own account ($1200).
The High Court was told there was no clear motive for the thefts. Stevens and his family were comfortably off financially. A psychological assessment suggested Steven’s mild depression was ameliorated by splashing money around for the benefit of others.
Justice Osborne said the sentencing judge had dismissed consideration of home detention, emphasising the need for imprisonment on grounds of a ‘clear need for denunciation.’ Home detention was more appropriate, Justice Osborne ruled. Stevens had no past record of similar offending and was unlikely to reoffend.
The formula applied for home detention meant a 23 month jail term would translate to eleven and half months home detention. Since Stevens had already spent several months in jail prior to his appeal, the term of home detention required to complete his sentence was reduced to nine months.
Stevens v. R. – High Court (1.08.23)
23.127