At least ten of the purchases made from the stolen information were over $2000 with the man attempting to make nearly $47,000 worth of purchases, of which just $28,000 cleared. He was ordered to pay a total of $2500 reparation to his victims.
Following that sentencing he became liable for deportation as he came to New Zealand with his wife from the Philippines in 2016. He applied to the tribunal to be allowed to stay on the basis that kicking him out would cause him and his family extreme hardship.
He told the tribunal that he had no plan to start stealing but when he saw hospital patients’ cards lying around he saw an opportunity to get money to send back to his family in Manila.
Despite that most of the money was spent on clothing and gadgets for himself.
He acknowledged that his offending was poorly thought-out with most of the goods he’d purchased being delivered to his actual home address. When they arrived he’d invent an explanation to his wife about where they’d come from or how he’d been able to afford them.
The man isn’t the first hospital worker to be convicted for stealing patients’ money with one nurse being suspended last year for pinching cash from one person’s wallet while they underwent a heart check, while another nurse stole patients’ credit cards including one who was in surgery and one who had died.
As part of his evidence to the tribunal the man said that he was the primary caregiver to his young daughter and that if he had to return to the Philippines his wife would not accompany him.
Counsel on behalf of the Minister for Immigration,said in opposing the man’s application to remain in the country that family hardship was an inevitable consequence of someone being deported and there were multiple options in terms of childcare for their daughter and to maintain their relationship by distance.
“The appellant’s offending in this case was serious, in particular, due to its dishonest nature, the fact that the victims were vulnerable, and that the appellant breached the trust that those who go to hospital are entitled to have,” they said.
“People who go to hospital are vulnerable, frail and sick. It was planned and sustained, and the level of spending was substantial. The purchases were not necessities and the appellant was motivated by ‘curiosity and enjoyment’. There appears to have been no economic pressure on him.”
Counsel for the Minister of Immigration said the public expected residents to uphold certain behaviours and the man had clearly, and significantly, breached his obligations.
“To preserve public confidence in the immigration system, migrants who offend should be seen to be returned to their home countries because New Zealand will not tolerate such behaviour.”
However, the tribunal ultimately disagreed with its chair Judge Martin Treadwell ruling that there were exceptional humanitarian concerns with the man’s case.
“The Tribunal is satisfied that separating the appellant from his daughter would result in her suffering serious adverse developmental consequences. Put simply, it would not be in her best interests to be separated from a loving, involved parent to whom she is bonded,” Judge Treadwell’s decision reads.
It went on to say that it wasn’t attempting to trivialise the man’s offending but the court imposed a relatively light sentence and concluded that overall it would not be in the public interest, nor in the interests of the man or his family, to forcibly return him to the Philippines.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
