Arthur v Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board

[2025] NZHC 1574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2025-488-000003

[2025] NZHC 1574

BETWEEN

JOHN WILLIAM ARTHUR

Appellant

AND

PLUMBERS, GASFITTERS, AND DRAINLAYERS BOARD

Respondent

Hearing:	3 June 2025
Appearances:	Appellant in person (with McKenzie friend) SS McMullan for Respondent
Judgment:	16 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 16 June 2025 at 2.15 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland. Copy to: Appellant

ARTHUR v PLUMBERS, GASFITTERS, AND DRAINLAYERS BOARD [2025] NZHC 1574 [16 June 2025]

The appeal

[1]    John Arthur pleaded guilty to a suite of offences under the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006.1 He was convicted and fined.2 Mr Arthur appeals conviction and sentence. A conviction following a guilty plea may be quashed if a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.3 Exceptional circumstances must exist.4

[2]    Mr Arthur was (legally) represented when he pleaded guilty. He self-represented on appeal.5

Background

[3]    A gasfitter must be registered under the Act and hold a current practising licence.6 Unsurprisingly, gasfitting work must not endanger life. Mr Arthur was charged with gasfitting: (a) absent registration (and a current practising licence);7

(b) holding himself out to be a registered gasfitter;8 (c) doing an act intended to cause, or which may reasonably cause, someone to believe he was registered;9 and (d) most seriously, intentionally or negligently gasfitting in a manner dangerous to life.10

[4]Judge P Rzepecky captured the facts at sentencing:11

[3]        In relation to the McKean complainants, which is the offence of unauthorised gas fitting and holding yourself out to be a licensed gasfitter, the McKeans were the owners of a Mitsubishi house bus. They required some gas fitting work to be done, and you were recommended by a family member. You showed them a certification of compliance dated 12 September 2022 for gas fitting work that you had completed on the family member’s home. You wrote the registration number 824723 on that certificate. The McKean’s family member also showed them a laminated card which you had provided with your gas certificate, and that also showed your gas certificate registration number

1      The Act.

2      Mr Arthur was also ordered to pay reparation and costs on the charge of dangerous gasfitting.

3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232 and Re Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2023) [2023] NZSC 151, [2023] 1 NZLR 457.

4      In the sense identified in Re Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2023), above n 3, at [44] and [45].

5      I allowed Mr Arthur a McKenzie friend at the hearing (Reverend Alistair Wait).

6      Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, s 9.

7      Sections 123(2) and 9(1).

8      Section 122(a)(iii).

9      Section 122(a)(i).

10     Section 125(2)(a).

11     Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board v Arthur [2024] NZDC 29195.

143660 and that it expired in August 2024. But this was completely dishonest because these were not valid registered numbers for any licensed gasfitter.

[4]        What transpired was that in October and November 2022, they got you to install a gas water heater in their motorhome in Whau Valley. You told them that you would provide an invoice and a gas certificate. On 4 November 2022, you sent them a text message as follows:

RV and Gas Marine John Arthur

$1,300 deposit on water heater

[5]        Mr McKean deposited that amount to your bank account, which was also in the text. You carried out the gas fitting work by installing the water heater in the motorhome over several days in November and December 2022. You installed the water heater behind a removable exterior panel on the side of the motorhome.

[6]        On 11 November 2022, the Board emailed you advising that you were not authorised to carry out gas fitting work, and you replied to the Board. Despite being aware that you are not authorised to carry out the work, you continued to carry out work  on  the  motorhome,  finishing  the  work  on  24 December 2022.

[7]        On 15 December 2022, you sought an additional $500 from the McKeans, which they paid you in cash.

[8]        The water heater worked for approximately two days before it stopped working.

[9]        In May 2023, Mr McKean asked you for a gas certificate, as he had not received one. You replied: “It will be in the mailbox by Wednesday” but you did not provide the required gas certificate. Mr McKean had to employ somebody else to inspect the gas fitting installation and water heater. That person contacted the Board, as he was concerned about the quality of the gas fitting work. Mr McKean spoke to the Board on 13 June 2023 and for the first time learned that you were not authorised to carry out the gas fitting work.

[10]      An advisor to the Board has looked at the installation that you carried out. In summary, there was a risk that gas could build up in the enclosure that was left near the water heater’s flue. That, in turn, risked combustion and an explosion or fire occurring. The expert assessed the risk of explosion as high, and that the installation posed an extreme risk to the health and safety of the occupants of the motorhome. The McKeans were no doubt fortunate that this installation failed to work, because it was dangerous to life. There are other issues that were also identified.

[11]      You also did gas fitting work for Mrs Barrell. That charge is for unauthorised gas fitting and holding yourself out as a licensed gasfitter. Not having a licence and not being a gasfitter is the primary issue here. Mrs Barrell posted on a Facebook motorhome group that she was seeking advice about a gas system on her bus. You got in touch with her and said you were a

motorhome gasfitter. You offered to attend at her address and complete the work for between $1,800 and $2,000.

[12]      On 6 November 2022, you asked her to pay you $1,000 in advance to buy parts, which she paid. On 7 November, there was a text exchange in which you held yourself out to be a registered gasfitter. She specifically asked you if you had the qualifications to sign off, and you said that you did, and that you had been doing it since 1982. But of course, that was not correct.

[13]      You performed the gas fitting work on her house bus at her address. When you left the site, she observed that the work was largely incomplete. It was subsequently inspected by a gasfitter who deemed it to be non-compliant, unsafe, and requiring complete removal.

[14]      Finally, again, being an unlicensed or unregistered person under the Act but holding yourself out as being such a licensed or registered person or doing an act that is intended to cause any reasonable person to believe that you were registered, in relation to the Tutukaka Marina, the Board says that gas fitting on boats is restricted and may only be carried out by a person who is authorised. You are not authorised. The regulations require gas fitting certificates of compliance to be issued under general or high-risk gas fitting work. Gas fitting work on boats is high-risk, and we have heard that from  Ms Stuart today.

[15]      The Board says that you have never been licensed. On 26 February 2023, you emailed the Tutukaka Marina Management Trust Board, which manages the Tutukaka Marina, offering gas fitting services to boat owners. You signed off as RV  Marine and Gas Services.  Between 26 February and 30 June 2023, you attended a Trust meeting where you told the attendees you were a registered gasfitter with a lot of experience. That was not true as you were never registered. You said that you could issue gas certificates on the completion of work that had been done; that obviously was not correct either.

[16]      Following the meeting, the Marina Trust organised for you to inspect a gas fitting installation on a private yacht which was docked. Having inspected the gas fitting you provided what was intended to be a gas fitting inspection sheet. You also provided them with a laminated business card which referred to gas certification and had a registration number, again not a valid registration number for any registered authorised gasfitter.

[17]      After being notified by the Board that you were not authorised to do the gas fitting work, you have been trespassed from the Tutukaka Marina. So, not surprisingly, you are obviously not welcome to go back there.

[5]    Mr Arthur was charged 1 March 2024. He first appeared 12 March 2024. He failed  to  appear  8  April  2024.   A  “formal  proof”  hearing  was  scheduled  for   6 August 2024, at 10 am. Mr Arthur did not appear that morning, so Judge T Bayley reserved her decision in relation to the charges. Mr Arthur later arrived at court (a little before 1 pm). Mr Arthur had been represented throughout by Thode Utting & Co  (on legal aid). Wilson Main of that firm captures what happened next:

6.… I had a lengthy discussion with [Mr Arthur] about the charges. We went through the charges one by one, the relevant regulations under the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, and the difficulties he would have advancing any viable defence to the charges given the prosecution evidence against him for each charge (particularly, the evidence from all complainants that he provided gas registration details which were not valid for any registered or authorised gasfitter, alongside expert evidence regarding the quality of Mr Arthur’s work risking ill-health and death).

7.Mr Arthur said that he accepted his guilt according to law, but that he believed the regulations were wrong and that anybody in the automotive gasfitting industry would have done the gasfitting work exactly as he had done it. He told me that he was in discussions with the Minister of Energy about this.

8.However, Mr Arthur told me that for today’s purposes he accepted his guilt on all charges and he signed the summary of facts. At no time did I pressure Mr Arthur to plead guilty. I maintained that whether he was to plead guilty was always a matter for him, I am not aware of any person putting pressure on Mr Arthur to plead guilty.

9.The proceeding was recalled before Judge Bayley and the charges were put to Mr Arthur. Mr Arthur pleaded guilty to the first six charges. The final charge put to Mr Arthur was that he intentionally or negligently did gasfitting work in a manner that was dangerous to life. When this charge was put to Mr Arthur, he responded to the effect of, “no, my work wasn’t dangerous”.

10.As a result of Mr Arthur’s comments, I asked the Judge for the proceeding to be stood down so that I could confirm Mr Arthur’s instructions in relation to that charge.

11.Mr Arthur and I stepped outside of the court room and discussed his position. Mr Arthur told me that his work was not dangerous and that anyone in the automative industry would agree with the type of piping he had used. I discussed with him that even if that was the case, all of those people were also acting outside of the current regulations. I again referred Mr Arthur to the report prepared by the prosecution’s expert witness, Peter Worsnop. I advised Mr Arthur that Mr Worsnop worked within the bounds of the law and had given evidence that  Mr Arthur’s work risked ill-health and death. After some discussion, Mr Arthur accepted that, by the current laws, his work was dangerous to life.

12.Mr Arthur also told me that he was going to speak with the Minister of Energy about gasfitting law changes. I discussed with him the possibility of obtaining a discharge without conviction if there were law changes. However, I advised this was a slim chance given the time required for law changes to occur.

13.The proceeding was recalled and the charge was put to Mr Arthur again. Mr Arthur pleaded guilty.

14.In accordance with Mr Arthur’s instructions, I informed the Judge that Mr Arthur was speaking with the Minister of Energy about legislative changes. Pending the outcome of Mr Arthur’s discussions with the Minister, I successfully sought that convictions not be entered yet so that Mr Arthur could apply for a discharge without conviction.

15.After the hearing, Mr Arthur told me that he was going to compile evidence to send to the Minister about the “shoddy” gasfitting work he has had to repair and why current laws are what are causing the real risk.

16.I then made another file note of what had occurred since Mr Arthur appeared at Court. ...

[6]    Mr Main’s evidence marries  that  of  Jarred  Scott,  another  lawyer  at  Thode Utting & Co. Mr Scott and Mr Arthur had spoken approximately six weeks earlier (on 21 June 2024):

(a)Mr Arthur initially told me that he was going to plead not guilty.

(b)I told him that that was fine, he is entitled to do that if he wants. I asked him what his defence was.

(c)Mr Arthur told me that his work was not dangerous.

(d)I advised him that that is not a defence to the first six charges of doing restricted work while not registered. While he is entitled to take those charges to trial, he will inevitably be found guilty. In doing so, he will lose any discount he would otherwise receive for pleading guilty, so his sentence would be more stern.

(e)Mr Arthur told me that he was registered under previous legislation and that he did not need to be registered under the current legislation. I recall accessing the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 at legislation.govt.nz. I read section 9 to him. I explained that that means that unless he was registered under that act, he did not have a defence for any gasfitting work he did.

(f)Mr Arthur tried to explain to me that his work was well done and not dangerous. I recall I had to repeat to him a few times that the offences we were talking about were for not being registered, not doing dangerous work.

(g)Ultimately, Mr Arthur agreed that he would plead guilty to those charges. He was not happy about it, but I felt he understood why he had no defence to the registration offences.

(h)In relation to the seventh charge, Mr Arthur told me that he was installing flexible piping on motorhomes and boats, not rigid piping. He told me that rigid piping, installed on a vehicle that moves and/or vibrates because of the engine, was more likely to break and cause an explosion. He told me the only way to make gas installations safe on vehicles is to use flexible piping to account for that movement.

However, he told me that that is against the regulations. He told me that the regulations were designed for homes and buildings, which obviously do not move and where rigid piping is appropriate.

(i)I advised Mr Arthur that I am not an expert gasfitter and that he might well be correct. But to prove that, he would have to obtain the evidence of an expert gasfitter to the effect that the current regulations around the use of flexible piping in vehicles leads to dangerous installations. Mr Arthur was unaware of who could provide that sort of expert opinion.

(j)Mr Arthur further told me he was in the process of petitioning Parliament to have the regulations changed. I explained that in my view, if he knew that the work he was doing was inconsistent with the prescriptions of the regulations, then he ought not to have been doing it until the regulations were changed. I advised that the Court would probably take the view that his efforts to have the law changed were proof that he knew that what he was doing was contrary to industry standard.

(k)I do not believe Mr Arthur told me how he would plead to that seventh charge.

Mr Arthur’s case

[7]    Mr Arthur filed two affidavits in support of the appeal; a  memorandum (dated 14 February 2025), and other pre-hearing material. Mr Arthur tendered a three-page submission at the hearing. Essentially, Mr Arthur contends he was wrongly convicted because:

(a)His guilty plea was not a product of choice.

(b)Mr Main and Mr Scott wrongly disregarded his experience as a gasfitter in the automotive industry.

(c)He had a defence to the dangerous gasfitting charge.

(d)He did not intend to represent he was a registered (and licensed) gasfitter, and hence had a defence to the holding out charges.

[8]    Mr Arthur briefly cross-examined Mr Main and Mr Scott. He was cross-examined, also briefly, by Mr McMullan on behalf of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board.

[9]    Mr Arthur also contends he should be discharged without conviction even if he was properly convicted.

[10]   Finally, Mr Arthur appeals his sentence, albeit without submissions directed at it.

Analysis

Did Mr Arthur’s guilty pleas reflect choice?

[11]   No recitation of authority is required for the proposition that a guilty plea must be voluntary. Mr Arthur argued his guilty pleas were involuntary, as his will was overborne.

[12]   Mr Arthur’s affidavits do not encapsulate this contention. In his second affidavit, Mr Arthur says:

3.1.I accept that Mr. Scott and Mr. Main advised me that holding my qualifications did not constitute a defense under the current law.

3.2.I acknowledge that they advised me that if I wished to contest the charges, I would need expert evidence challenging the regulations themselves, which I could not obtain at that time.

3.3.However, I felt overwhelmed, disillusioned, and that the process was against me regardless of the facts of safety and soundness of my work, leading me to plead guilty out of perceived futility, not because I accepted that my work was unsafe.

3.4.I did not fully understand that pleading guilty would be taken by the Court as an admission of being unqualified and reckless, rather than as an acknowledgment that I was in breach of registration formalities despite holding genuine expertise in my field.

3.5.I accept that the plea was technically entered on advice, but I did not feel that my position was properly heard or understood, nor did I feel that my lawyers presented my technical position or industry practice context to the Court in full.

[13]   Mr Arthur put to Mr Main and Mr Scott he told each he was “unhappy” about pleading guilty. Each agreed Mr Arthur said or conveyed as much.  However, that Mr Arthur was unhappy about pleading guilty says nothing about whether his will was overborne. Again, Mr Arthur’s own evidence does not go that far, and his second

affidavit tells against it: the cited passages betray an acknowledgement Mr Arthur acted on advice.

[14]   The (courtroom) sequence is consistent with this conclusion. Mr Arthur pleaded guilty after his consultation with Mr Main, who then requested the charges be put to Mr Arthur. When they were, Mr Arthur pleaded guilty to six of the seven charges. As will be apparent from Mr Main’s evidence, Mr Arthur did question the dangerous gasfitting charge when it was put to him. Consequently, Mr Main asked the Judge for an opportunity to “confirm Mr Arthur’s instructions in relation to that charge”. The Judge afforded that opportunity. Mr Main and Mr Arthur conferred again. Once they had, the charge was again put. Mr Arthur then pleaded guilty to the dangerous gasfitting charge.

[15]   Mr Arthur’s brief challenge to that charge is also consistent with his pleas being voluntary. Had Mr Arthur been intent on defending that or any other charge, he need only have said that to the Judge. Mr Arthur’s presentation in this Court cements these observations. He appeared intelligent. He was articulate, even forthright.

[16]   I do not doubt Mr Arthur was frustrated when he pleaded guilty. Mr Main’s evidence makes that clear, more particularly, that Mr Arthur believed the law should recognise his automotive gasfitting experience, and that the legislation was unfairly framed. Frustration, however, is not synonymous with an absence of agency.

[17]   I, therefore, find Mr Arthur’s pleas were voluntary, a conclusion commensurate with his own evidence.

Did Mr Main and Mr Scott wrongly disregard Mr Arthur’s experience as a gasfitter in the automotive industry?

[18]   Mr Arthur said he had decades of experience in the automotive gasfitting industry, and his lawyers failed to engage with, or act upon, this aspect. Mr Arthur was especially critical of Mr Scott in this respect during his cross-examination of him.

[19]   Mr Scott responded that he was aware of Mr Arthur’s asserted experience, but it did not constitute a defence to the charges, as a gasfitter needed to be registered under the Act. Mr Scott noted Mr Arthur had always accepted he was not so registered.

[20]   No error arises here, in part for the reason identified by Mr Scott. Mr Arthur was not registered under the Act, hence the charges alleging that could not be defended. That Mr Arthur was allegedly experienced in the automotive gasfitting industry said nothing about the other charges either. An experienced gasfitter could, for example, intentionally or negligently gasfit in a manner dangerous to life. Similarly, an experienced but unregistered gasfitter could hold themself out as being registered, or  cause someone else to believe just that.   It follows Mr Scott (and     Mr Main) did not fail to engage with, or act upon, Mr Arthur’s alleged experience in advising him to plead guilty.

Did Mr Arthur have a defence to the dangerous gasfitting charge?

[21]   Mr Arthur said he had a defence to this charge. The contention is captured by Mr Arthur’s written submission tendered at the hearing:

1.   Technical Conflict – Why I Worked the Way I did

I acknowledge I was not formally registered under the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006. I never tried to deny that. But I want to make it clear that the work I carried out followed international safety standards that apply to mobile and marine environments. These include AS/NZS 5601.2, World Sailing regulations, and Category 1 Yachting New Zealand safety standards.

These standards do not allow rigid copper piping to be used in situations involving vibration or movement. In fact, if I had followed the PGDB’s domestic rules as written, I would have installed systems I know to be unsafe. That would have been professionally irresponsible. My decision to use flexible LPG piping was based on engineering judgment, not carelessness. This wasn’t recklessness. It was the opposite. I made a choice to prioritise public safety, even though it put me outside the scope of the Act.

[22]   Mr Arthur’s postulated defence concerns the piping in relation to the work he did for the McKeans. But the dangerous gasfitting charge was not based on the piping; it was based on the flue. The summary of facts in relation to the charge makes this clear:

Pete Worsnop is a certifying gasfitter and technical advisor to the Board. During the Board’s investigation of Mr Gray’s complaint, Mr Worsnop completed a technical review of Mr Arthur’s gasfitting work. Mr Worsnop identified that there was a rectangular hole in the motorhome’s exterior panel which covered the water heater. However, this hole had been cut for a previous water heater and did not align with the new water heater’s flue which Mr Arthur had installed. This meant that there was a risk gas could build up in the enclosure. That in turn risked poor combustion and/or an explosion/fire occurring. Mr Worsnop assessed the risk of an explosion/fire as high, and determined that the installation posed an “extreme” risk to the health and safety of occupants of the motorhome as a result.

Mr Arthur had carried out the gasfitting work negligently and in a manner that was dangerous to life.

[23]   Another aspect is important. While the burden of proof in relation to dangerousness rested on the prosecution, a contention the work was not dangerous would, in practice, require support from a suitably qualified expert. Mr Arthur had no such expert, a point rightly emphasised by Mr Main in his discussion with Mr Arthur when the Judge stood the case down in relation to the dangerous gasfitting charge.

[24]It follows Mr Arthur had no defence to this charge.

Did Mr Arthur have a defence to the holding out charges?

[25]   Mr Arthur faced two different species of holding out charges under s 122 of the Act:

(a)Holding himself out to be a registered or licensed gasfitter (contrary to s 122(a)(iii)).

(b)Doing an act “intended to cause or [which] may reasonably cause any other person to believe” the person is registered or licensed (contrary to s 122(a)(i)).

[26]   Mr Arthur’s alleged defence is directed at (b): he argues he did not intend to cause anyone to believe he was registered or licensed, that is, he did not intend to deceive the complainants in this respect.

[27]   The first difficulty with the argument is apparent from the quoted statutory language. The offence provision prohibits two types of act, only one of which requires intent. It is thus an offence to do an act that reasonably causes any other person to believe the defendant is registered or licensed. This limb of the offence provision does not require that act be accompanied by an intention to deceive.12 The charges faced by Mr Arthur mirrored the statutory language, thereby encompassing this alternative scenario.

[28]   The second difficulty is that Mr Arthur’s contention is unsustainable on the facts:

(a)Mr Arthur provided a McKean family member a document purporting to be a certificate of compliance in relation to an earlier gasfitting job. The document referred to registration number 824723. Mr Arthur provided the same person a laminated card which said: “New Zealand, Gas Certification, Reg. No: 143660, Expires: Aug 2024”.

(b)Mr Arthur subsequently told the McKeans he would supply a gas certificate in relation to his (completed) work.

(c)Ms Barrell specifically asked Mr Arthur by text message to confirm that he was a “current, registered gas fitter”. He responded (by text), “Yup been doing lpg since 1982”.

(d)Mr Arthur sent the Trust Board a photograph of a laminated card saying, “New Zealand,  Gas  Certification,  Reg.  No:  143810,  Expires:  April 2026”. Mr Arthur had earlier quoted the same registration number in connection with his proposed gasfitting.

(e)These numbers were bogus.

12     This expression is offered as a convenient shorthand for an intention to cause the other person to believe the defendant was licensed or registered under the Act.

(f)  The  conduct  at  (b),  (c),  and  (d)  occurred  after  the  Board  (on   11 November 2022) told Mr Arthur he was not authorised to carry out gas fitting.

[29]   In oral argument, Mr Arthur said the numbers were web-cloud references in relation to each job, not purported registrations. I am unable to accept that; the conduct was unequivocal. Mr Arthur represented to each of the three complainants that he was registered under the Act in connection with gasfitting when he was not, knowing he was not. The conduct admits the obvious inference Mr Arthur intended the complainants to believe he was registered (and licensed), an inference supported by the fact the gasfitting was for reward.

Discharge without conviction and sentence

[30]   Mr Arthur argued he should have been discharged without conviction; a contention not advanced in the District Court. Mr Arthur’s written submission again captures the argument:

Since this all began, my life has changed dramatically. I have lost my career and reputation. I have been publicly shamed in the media. My family relationships have been fractured. I am now retired, living on a very modest superannuation, and under medical advice to avoid stress.

I cannot return to the work I trained for and built my life around. The financial penalties and the emotional cost have already taken a huge toll. The punishment has far exceeded the nature of what actually occurred.

[31]   Mr McMullan responded this is not an appropriate case for a discharge without conviction, which requires gross disproportionality between offence-seriousness and the consequences of conviction.13 Mr McMullan noted the offending comprised a pattern of conduct for reward; encompassed dangerous gasfitting, the seriousness of which speaks for itself; and included Mr Arthur continuing to gasfit after being told by the Board he was not authorised to do  so.   Mr McMullan also noted that  if     Mr Arthur was admitting to a lifetime of prohibited works as an unregistered gasfitter, that he was no longer able to do so reflected the Act’s purpose.

[32]I agree with Mr McMullan.

13     Sentencing Act 2002, s 107.

[33]   Mr Arthur offered no submission directed at the sentence. The fine (of $8,000) and other orders are unremarkable.

Result

[34]The appeal is dismissed.

……………………………..

Downs J