EDWARDS v MSD Judgment No 2 [2018] NZHC 1792
The court granted discharge under s 106 because the applicant presented a realistic, supported repayment plan (four years) and undertook to pay at least 20% of net post-tax income, with acceptance by Work and Income and the respondent, which satisfied the court that full reparation would be repaid within a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 1792
- Parties
- Appellant: Alvina Jean Edwards; Respondent: Ministry of Social Development
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 July 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Sentencing / Discharge Application / Application for Discharge Under S 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (post Sentencing)
- Outcome
- Order discharging Ms Edwards pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
- Legal Topics
- Section 106 Sentencing Act 2002, Discharge on Conditions, Reparation Repayment Plan, Court Undertakings
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alvina Jean Edwards
Appellant
Ministry of Social Development
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Sentencing / Discharge Application / Application for Discharge Under S 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (post Sentencing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant discharge under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002
- 2 Whether the proposed repayment plan is satisfactory and realistic
- 3 Whether the undertaking to contribute at least 20% of net post-tax income is sufficient
Ratio Decidendi
The court granted discharge under s 106 because the applicant presented a realistic, supported repayment plan (four years) and undertook to pay at least 20% of net post-tax income, with acceptance by Work and Income and the respondent, which satisfied the court that full reparation would be repaid within a reasonable period.
Court Disposition
Order discharging Ms Edwards pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
Orders
- Order discharging Alvina Jean Edwards pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
- Discharge confirmed on basis of applicant's undertaking to contribute at least 20% of net post-tax income and the four-year repayment plan accepted by Work and Income and the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
EDWARDS v MSD Judgment No 2 [2018] NZHC 1792 [19 July 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECRI-2017-419-000070CRI-2016-019-002837[2018] NZHC 1792BETWEEN ALVINA JEAN EDWARDSAppellantAND MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTRespondentHearing: 19 July 2018Counsel: L J R Wilkins for AppellantM L Dillon for RespondentJudgment: 19 July 2018JUDGMENT (No 2) OF PAUL DAVISON JThis judgment was delivered by me on 19 July 2018 at 1:00 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Hamilton[1] In my judgment of 13 June 2018 I indicated my intention to grant Ms Edwards'application for discharge pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002, subject to beingsatisfied regarding a repayment plan by her pursuant to which she was to proposeterms which would repay the full amount within a reasonable period.1[2] Ms Edwards has filed an affidavit setting out the basis upon which sheproposed to repay the full amount from her income over a period of four years. Theproposal is supported by a repayment plan prepared with the assistance of a financialmentor of the Hamilton Budgeting Advisory Trust. Also attached to Ms Edwards'affidavit is correspondence from a Collections Officer of Work and Income confirmingthat the proposed repayment plan is acceptable to Work and Income's Collections Unit.[3] Mr Dillon, for the Ministry, advises that he accepts that Ms Edwards has madea realistic commitment to repay the full amount of reparation having regard to herfinancial position and resources.[4] I am satisfied that Ms Edwards' proposal, supported by her undertaking to theCourt to contribute at least 20 per cent of her net post-tax income to reparation of theoutstanding sum, is a satisfactory basis upon which to confirm my indication.[5] I therefore make an order discharging Ms Edwards pursuant to s 106 of theSentencing Act 2002._____________Paul Davison J1 Edwards v Ministry of Social Development [2018] NZHC 1404.