At sentencing, Judge Tini Clark deemed her offending was driven by “greed”.
“It is hard to see how it could be described in any other terms,” Justice Becroft said.
He said an appeal was “not a second shot at sentencing”.
Instead, it was to detect and correct error, and to only interfere when the relevant statutory tests were not met or the sentence was manifestly excessive.
“That is not the situation here,” he said.
Deposited money into her own account
Between 2021 and 2023, Thompson-Bell began siphoning money from the trust account of her employer, which has suppression.
The employer can be described as a “local work skills programme”.
Instead of using the trust’s money to pay legitimate invoices to service providers, she put the money into one of four accounts she had control of, including one belonging to her young daughter.
In 2023, the chief executive started receiving letters from the IRD and other companies stating that payments had been missed.
A forensic accountant investigated and discovered that one of the accounts belonged to a staff member, identified as Thompson-Bell.
In total, $499,972.55 was stolen.
The trust was able to meet its commitments for the outstanding invoices from surplus funds earmarked for future restoration projects.
Appeal argued it should have been home detention
At Thompson-Bell’s appeal in the High Court at Hamilton last month, her counsel, Christine Hardy, argued the sentence on three grounds.
Those were that the starting point of five years was too high, there was insufficient credit for previous good character and the credit for remorse and restorative justice was also insufficient.
Justice Andrew Becroft heard Ariana Thompson-Bell’s appeal. Photo / John Stone
Hardy submitted this was a case where home detention should have been reached.
As soon as the offending was discovered, Thompson-Bell engaged in a hui, effectively a restorative justice conference, where the trust asked her to start repaying the money.
Since first appearing in court last year, $66,355.93 had been repaid, which included about $40,000 from her mother.
Hardy said a lower starting point would have been more appropriate and submitted the offending wasn’t sophisticated: “it was simply changing bank account numbers”.
Thompson-Bell was a mother of five and pregnant with her sixth child.
‘She is now in a better place’
Justice Becroft said Judge Clark’s sentencing decision was “careful and comprehensive”.
“The 55% allowance for mitigating factors was already very generous.
“It could not be said to be manifestly inappropriate – far from it.”
As for her starting point, he said the judge did turn her mind to culpability, and the circumstances of the offending, and it wasn’t just based on the amount of money stolen.
“Here, there were numerous transactions,” he said.
“They represented a chronic pattern of long-term offending.”
Thompson-Bell was also in a high-trust position and caused a “massive loss” to the victim company.
On the previous good character discount, her service to her marae and Kōhanga Reo, school boards and community initiatives had to be balanced against the “length and repetitive nature of Ms Thompson-Bell’s premeditated offending”, Justice Becroft said.
She carried out 81 fraudulent transactions over 26 months.
“Clearly, this prolonged offending limits any claim of good character,” he said, adding the 5% discount Judge Clark had allowed “could not be said to be an error”.
He said the 15% allowance for the impact of a jail term on her whānau was appropriate.
Thompson-Bell initially had concerns about her care in Auckland Women’s prison, but had recently been moved to its specialist Mother and Baby Unit.
“She is now in a better place,” Justice Becroft said.
“It is a sophisticated and specialised unit, particularly focusing on the needs of both the incarcerated mother and also her baby.”
Thompson-Bell will be eligible for release in April.
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 10 years and has been a journalist for 21.