In June, Melanie Tyrelle Anderson, 49, was sentenced to nine months’ home detention after she pleaded guilty to five charges of theft in a special relationship.
She appealed to the High Court at Invercargill last week and two months were shaved off the sentence.
Between May 2012 and November 2020, Anderson worked for two companies and stole from both in the same fashion.
Desiree O’Sullivan owned Gracetek Ltd with her partner Phil Grace.
When Ms O’Sullivan’s health began to deteriorate in 2017, Anderson took greater control of the business.
The court heard the defendant had access to passwords and bank access codes that she ultimately abused, stealing almost $50,000, which she used to go on overseas trips and buy luxury items.
She took almost $30,000 from the business while the victim was dealing with personal issues.
At the appeal, counsel Jono Ross argued the discount awarded for reparation was too low.
He said Anderson had sold some of her family’s vehicles and received loans from relatives to repay her debt.
The court heard to pay back the loans, Anderson was now working up to six days a week at the freezing works and living a more frugal life.
Mr Ross said this was a "tangible expression of the offender’s remorse".
Crown prosecutor Sarah McKenzie disagreed and said the original discounts were generous.
"She’d sprung from one job to another ... really nestled herself into their business and way of life and continued to offend," she said.
She said the woman was "keeping up with the Joneses" and argued that defendants cannot buy themselves out of a sentence.
The end sentence could not be described as manifestly excessive, Ms McKenzie said.
Justice Rachel Dunningham said discounts were necessary to incentivise other defendants to pay reparation.
"It clearly holds the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim. It also promotes in the offender a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgement of the harm caused," she said.
She ruled the discount awarded to Anderson for paying reparation was too low.
Ms O’Sullivan said she and the other victims were "horrified" that Anderson’s sentence had been reduced.
"It took us a lot of time and effort to try and get her sentenced, and she gets two months off. It’s a joke," she said.
Mr Grace felt Anderson had received "the lightest sentence possible".
"I can’t believe that she would even be able to challenge that," he said.
He thought a sentence of imprisonment would be a more fitting punishment.
"We did it because we didn’t want for her, or a person like her, to be employed by somebody else," he said.
"This is just another kick in the guts for us."
