One plus one can mean more than two the High Court decided in an unsuccessful appeal against sentence on a further conviction for fraud offences.
In June 2022, Casey John Smith was sentenced to twelve months home detention for a raft of dishonesty offences committed over two years previously: stealing some $39,500 through fraudulent use of a stolen credit card and bank card. The sentencing judge described this as a lenient sentence, particularly since Smith had previous convictions for dishonesty.
Unbeknown to this judge, Smith was on the hook for further charges, after a fraud spree during covid-19 lockdown. Sentencing for this criminal behaviour came before the courts at a later date.
In March 2024, Smith was in the High Court challenging a two year three month prison sentence imposed for his lockdown frauds and separate frauds involving use of a forged driver’s licence.
Smith made multiple fraudulent applications seeking government covid-19 subsidies for wage payments and essential worker support schemes, exploiting government’s ‘high trust’ model enabling money to be delivered quickly to affected businesses with a minimum of paperwork. Some of his fraudulent applications were identified at time they were submitted, others following a subsequent audit.
The court was told Smith made applications both in his own name and in the names of others where he had knowledge of their IRD tax numbers. Out of 43 fraudulent applications, five were successful, netting some $27,000.
Nearly half this money was paid into a Westpac bank account which Smith had hijacked. Using information in a stolen wallet, Smith doctored the owner’s driver licence by having his photo added to a facsimile of the licence, using this to reactivate the real customer’s closed Westpac account.
Other frauds attempted or perpetrated using a doctored driver’s licence included: making online application to Heartland Bank for a loan to purchase a BMW (foiled when Heartland followed up on the application by contacting the person named on the licence, only to learn no loan application had been made), and; to get access to a bank account stealing about $50,000 (with Smith fraudulently requesting a replacement SIM card at a 2 Degrees outlet and then having the victim’s bank send a temporary password to a phone now controlled by Smith.)
On appeal, Smith said the two year three month prison sentence on his later conviction was too harsh; a second sentence of twelve months home detention was more appropriate, he said.
Confirming the sentence imposed, Justice Becroft said the sentence should reflect the totality of all Smith’s offending. Given the nature and number of offences involved, an initial sentence of home detention followed by two years three months imprisonment for the later sentence, when added together, are not wholly disproportionate, he said.
Smith v. Police & Ministry of Social Development – High Court (27.03.24)
24.076
Addendum: In passing, Justice Becroft expressed concern at media’s misleading use of the phrases ‘starting point’ and ‘discount’ when reporting on length of sentences.
‘Starting point’ is not the sentence that would be imposed but for any ‘discount’ applied; it is merely the first step required by the Sentencing Act when determining a sentence.
The ‘starting point’ for any sentence is not the maximum penalty set down by law; it is the level of penalty commonly imposed in the past for similar fact offending.
And a ‘discount’ is not a special deal on offer as found in a supermarket, Justice Becroft said. Rather, it reflects a statutory procedure in the Sentencing Act requiring specific criteria to be taken into account as mitigation, necessary to reach an appropriate sentence.