Haropula v R [2011] NSWCCA 57

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Haropula v R [2011] NSWCCA 57 Hearing dates: 16 February 2011 Decision date: 16 February 2011 Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1] Johnson J at [20] McCallum J at [21] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal 2. Dismiss the appeal Catchwords: CRIMINAL - sentence appeal - fraud - manifest excess - relevance of psychological history when criminality assessed - repayment of monies - appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act NSW 1900 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mava Haropula (Applicant) The Crown Representation: Counsel: G D Wendler (Applicant) J Pickering (Crown) Solicitors: Van Houten Law (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) File Number(s): 2009/11959 Decision under appeal Date of Decision: 2010-05-10 00:00:00 Before: Black DCJ File Number(s): 2009/11959

Judgment 1The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of being an officer of a body corporate and taking for his own benefit monies of the Lismore Neighbourhood Centre contrary to s 173 of the Crimes Act NSW 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years for count 1. He imposed a fixed term of 3 years imprisonment for counts 2 and 3 making that sentence wholly concurrent with the sentence in relation to count 1. Accordingly the total effective sentence was that imposed with respect to count 1. 2The sentencing judge allowed the applicant a discount of 25% for his plea of guilty and having regard to the circumstances of his family made a finding of special circumstances. 3The applicant became the financial manager of the Lismore Neighbourhood Centre in 2006. Shortly after he commenced in this role he began to defraud the Centre. Between 15 August 2006 and 29 October 2009 he took a total sum of $67,050.36 from the Centre. None of this has been repaid. 4The applicant had previously been convicted in Queensland for offences of dishonesty. On 30 January 2004 he was sentenced at Ipswich in respect of two counts of fraud when he was an employee. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and required to serve 6 months of that sentence. On 16 December 2009 he was convicted and sentenced at Townsville for one count of fraud and two counts of attempted fraud arising from the unauthorised use of credit cards. The Townsville offences were committed while the applicant was on bail for the offences the subject of the present proceedings. 5The sentencing judge was aware of the applicant's previous history of fraudulent behaviour. He was also provided with a copy of a report from a psychologist which had been tendered to the Queensland court when he was sentenced for the credit card offences. That report is the subject of ground 1 for the present application. 6The applicant gave evidence at his sentence hearing during which there was a discussion of his disposition of the monies which he obtained from the Centre. He said that a substantial proportion was provided to assist a family who was in unfortunate circumstances due to the death of the father. His Honour's finding in relation to the monies paid to the Renagi family is the subject of the second ground of appeal. Apart from these issues the applicant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive.