DPP v Ngkupumu

 
FREE EXCERPT

[2014] IECA 33

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Birmingham J.

Sheehan J.

Mahon J.

259/13
DPP v Ngkupumu
The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
V
Dadibaku Ngkupumu
Appellant

259/2013 - Birmingham Sheehan Mahon - Court of Appeal - 10/12/2014 - 2014 16 4534 2014 IECA 33

Criminal law - Appeal against severity of sentence-Imprisonment - Five year sentence - Seventeen counts on indictment - Offences involving the use of a computer, the use of a false instrument and false accounting - Defrauding employer of large sums of money - Whether error of principle

Mr. Justice Birmingham
1

In this case the appellant appeals against the severity of a sentence of five years imprisonment that was imposed upon him in the Circuit Court on the 26th November, 2013. The sentence has been backdated to a date in May 2013. The sentences were imposed in respect of seventeen counts on indictment and the sentences were all to run concurrently.

2

The factual background is that the appellant is a former employee of Avery Dennison, and he began employment with them back in July 2012. The appellant has a background in IT and as an employee in October 2012, he joined the payment and banking team and his role there included dealing with what is described as rejected payments, that is to say responding to situations where there was an error, perhaps as a result of incorrect account details being furnished or something of that nature.

3

Members of that team were, by use of personal issue cards and pin numbers, able to make alterations. Alterations for example, as to payment destinations, account details and so on. In very simple terms, perhaps overly simple terms, the appellant used his pin number and his authorisation to alter mandates so as to cause loss to his employer. The total loss to Avery Dennison was €336,814.27. While the total amount of unsuccessful attempts was something over €304,000.

4

It is the case that the system apparently was designed to involve two employees that would seem to have been designed as a form of safeguard, so that two employees each with their own passwords and pin numbers were required to be involved in a transaction. However, the appellant is this case had access to the details of a former employee who had played her role in training him...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL