KEY POINTS:
The Court of Appeal has upheld a 27-month prison term for the man who arranged the return of a Goldie painting, a valuable Bible and other works of art.
In dismissing the 38-year-old Auckland man's appeal, the judges noted that the circumstances of the case were "most unusual".
During a pre-trial hearing in the Auckland District Court last year Judge Phil Gittos said he would not be held to ransom over the return of valuable cultural artefacts stolen from Auckland University.
The man cannot be named for legal reasons.
Judge Gittos imposed the two year three month term after the man admitted one charge of stealing a Ponsonby man's identity to try to take out a $180,000 mortgage on his home.
The fraud almost succeeded - the HSBC sent a letter of approval to the PO box the man had rented.
It was literally "in the mail", the Appeal Court said.
The con was discovered only when the owners complained to the Post Office that they were not receiving their mail.
On appeal, the man's lawyer, Christopher Comeskey, said that Judge Gittos had increased the sentence too much because of previous offending.
In addition, he had not given enough credit for assistance the man had provided in arranging the return of the stolen items.
However, the appeal judges agreed with Judge Gittos that the man was a recidivist offender "of notable proportions" and the "uplift" in sentence for previous offending was warranted.
Over 20 years he had amassed 84 fraud convictions and 55 for burglary and receiving.
In 2002 he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years for two similar mortgage frauds when he defrauded two banks of a total $200,000.
In relation to the man's assistance relating to the university burglary, the judges said that the man returned volumes of Colin McCahon poetry to the police on July 19 last year and the Bible on October 5.
On the morning of his trial on October 16, the man's then lawyer sought a sentencing indication from the judge, indicating that he was in a position also to return the Goldie to the police.
The Appeal Court said that Judge Gittos was "singularly unimpressed".
He told the lawyer that seeking a reduction for significant assistance to the police in the resolution of some unrelated crime was not inappropriate.
In the face of that indication, the man then admitted one charge of fraud, the Crown offering no evidence on three other counts.
A written agreement was entered into with the police that they would write a letter to the court asking for leniency, and that the police would agree to an amnesty on any charges from the acquisition or return of the artworks.
The following day the man returned the stolen Goldie to the police.
A detective inspector wrote a letter to the court detailing the man's assistance, recording that he was not responsible for the burglary or receiving.
The letter said that the police would not be prosecuting him for any offences he might have committed in his dealings with the artworks.
At the later sentencing hearing Judge Gittos acknowledged the man's assistance and noted that the community had gained significantly from the artworks' return.
However, the fact that the police were not charging him was "in itself a considerable reward".
While giving him some credit, the judge said he did not wish to indicate to him or anyone else "that those who go out and steal items of significant heritage value like that, can then use them as some sort of ransom tool".
In dismissing the appeal, the appeal judges noted no-one had been apprehended as a result of the information, the man was put at no risk from other criminals for his help to the police, he had been discharged on three of the four counts he faced, and had been given an amnesty from prosecution in relation to the burglary.
- NZPA
