Former Auditor-General Jeffrey Thomas Chapman, who was jailed for fraud in 1997, told the High Court at Wellington yesterday that he objected to paying an accountants' society fine as well.
Chapman was freed from jail in December 1997 after serving half of his 18-month sentence.
In May that year, the Court of
Appeal had trebled his jail term after the Crown argued that the six-month sentence imposed by the High Court was "manifestly inadequate."
Presenting his own case yesterday, Chapman asked Justice Ellis to review the society's decision to fine him $4000 and its order that he pay $4700 costs.
Justice Ellis reserved his decision, but said it was difficult for him and the society to decide if the fine was fair because Chapman had not supplied a statement of his financial position.
Chapman, who is also a former chief executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation, said it was a denial of natural justice for the society to fine him after the Court of Appeal had increased his sentence to 18 months' jail on 10 fraud convictions.
He said the society was also biased against him because he was its immediate past president when he was convicted.
However, he agreed the society had acted properly in striking him off its register of public accountants.
For the society, Michael Reed, QC, said it strenuously denied any suggestion of bias, and said Chapman had raised the bias issue unfairly, right at the end of his submissions.
Chapman said the penalties the society had imposed on him were far greater than it had imposed on any other members, some of whom had committed worse crimes.
He had consistently told the society that he did not have the money to pay either fines or costs.
Chapman pointed out that the Court of Appeal said he had made a considerable contribution to society before his crime, and the conviction and loss of reputation he had suffered was in itself a considerable penalty.
Mr Reed said the Appeal Court had known that Chapman would suffer further penalties from the society, which was entitled by law to take action against a man who had "grossly offended" against his profession.
"There was no more appropriate case than this for the society to express its grave displeasure."
- NZPA
