KEY POINTS:
The Supreme Court today allowed an appeal by a former Hamilton teacher against convictions for dishonestly using documents to gain ACC payments.
It also set aside her convictions and ordered a new trial but this is unlikely to go ahead.
Nicola Bronwyn Hayes, 45, was convicted in September 2006, of filing 29 fraudulent documents with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and jailed for 2-1/2 years.
In 1997, Hayes was working as a teacher when her neck was injured in a car accident and began claiming compensation from ACC for loss of earnings.
Hayes continued to receive weekly payments for the next seven years, despite the fact that from October that year she was actively involved in running two effluent removal businesses.
After her conviction, she appealed first to the Court of Appeal that her trial judge had failed to explain ACC legislation to the jury.
The Court of Appeal ruled against her but the Supreme Court ruled in May last year she should be allowed to appeal on that ground, and also on the trial judge's directions to the jury on the intent to defraud, and whether "pecuniary advantage" under the Crimes Act included the avoidance of risk of losing compensation from ACC.
In her defence, Hayes earlier said she thought she only had to declare earnings to ACC if they were related to teaching.
The Supreme Court, in allowing her appeal today, said Hayes' defence included the proposition that she was not dishonest because she thought she was entitled to weekly compensation payments because she was unable to work in her pre-accident occupation as a school teacher and was not making any money from self-employment in which she was actually engaged.
"The trial judge directed the jury that if Ms Hayes believed she was entitled to ACC payments, that belief had to be reasonable in order to be a defence."
The appellant challenged this direction in the Supreme Court, although she had not raised the point in the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court today said it was unanimous that the direction was wrong.
"If Ms Hayes did actually believe she was in the circumstances entitled to ACC, she was not guilty of the offences charged, even if her belief was unreasonable."
Hence the appeal was allowed and a new trial directed, it said.
"However, the Solicitor-General has indicated he was unlikely to proceed with it in view of Hayes having already served her sentence."
The Supreme Court also clarified what the phrase "pecuniary advantage" meant in the sections under which Hayes was charged.
"It means simply any enhancement of a person's financial position irrespective of whether the person may or may not be entitled in law to that enhancement."
- NZPA
