Dodgy mechanic loses appeal against sentence

File photo / Thinkstock

A mechanic who charged a client for fictitious repairs on his car has had his appeal against his sentence dismissed.

Karl John Abbott, a Canterbury mechanic, was paid to fix the automatic transmission on the complainant's car. However, rather than fixing the problem, he left the faulty transmission in place and claimed he had replaced it with a reconditioned model. The complainant and his insurer were billed $966 for the service.

The problem with the transmission continued and the complainant brought the vehicle back to Mr Abbott for further repairs. Again, the problem continued and the complainant took a claim to the Disputes Tribunal - which Mr Abbott won.

In part, this was because he provided proof of the replacement transmission in the form of a letter purporting to show the purchase of a reconditioned unit from a third party. This letter turned out to be forged by Mr Abbott.

Following this decision, the complainant took the car to a new mechanic, who discovered the numbers on the transmission unit matched those of the vehicle - meaning there was no way that this could be a reconditioned unit. As a result, Mr Abbott was charged with two counts of dishonestly using a document, and one of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The former related to the invoice that he had presented to the complainant and his insurer and the latter to the concocted letter produced at the Disputes Tribunal.

Part way through a District Court jury trial before Judge Turner, Mr Abbott pleaded guilty to the charges. He was sentenced to seven months home detention, after considerations were made for remorse, reparation and Mr Abbott's historical dishonesty charges.

He then appealed the sentence, claiming it was "excessive and disproportionate" and that the victim was not as vulnerable as suggested.

Judge Turner's original starting point for the sentence was 12 months imprisonment, which the Court of Appeal found to be appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was lenient, as attempting to pervert the course of justice was a serious offence.

It was also decided that Mr Abbott had only showed "some remorse", which appeared to be "more about the stressful situation he has put himself and his partner in than about any harm caused to the victim".

The appeal against his sentence was dismissed.