Legal Research
Cases
Bublitz v R

Bublitz v R

Case [2019] NZCA 379 22 August 2019

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA138/2018
[2019] NZCA 379

BETWEEN	PAUL NEVILLE BUBLITZ Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA168/2018
BETWEEN	LANCE DAVID MORRISON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	25 September 2018
Court:	Kós P, Winkelmann and Williams JJ
Counsel:	R S Reed QC and H M Z Ford for Appellant Bublitz D H O’Leary and R J Beca for Appellant Morrison B J Horsley and R K Thomson for Respondent
Judgment:	22 August 2019 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AMr Bublitz’s appeal is dismissed.
BMr Morrison’s appeal is dismissed.
CThere is no order made as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

Mr Bublitz and Mr Morrison were charged, initially, with multiple criminal counts under ss 220 and 242 of the Crimes Act 1961 and s 377 of the Companies Act 1993, arising from the collapse of two finance companies, Viaduct Capital Ltd and Mutual Finance Ltd. After nine months, their trial was aborted by Woolford J because of what the Judge described as “extensive” and “unprecedented” late disclosure by the Crown.[1]
[1]R v Bublitz [2017] NZHC 1059 [Reasons to abort trial] at [63] and [66].
Mr Bublitz and Mr Morrison sought costs. The Judge awarded Mr Morrison $75,000 under s 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 and made an award of $50,000 under s 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to be split five ways between Mr Bublitz, Mr Morrison, two other defendants and the Crown.[2]
[2]R v Bublitz [2018] NZHC 373 [Costs decision] at [131]. We refer to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 and Criminal Procedure Act 2011 as the CCCA and CPA respectively.
Mr Bublitz appeals the quantum of the CPA award. Mr Morrison appeals the quantum of the CCCA award.

Background

The charges arose from the 2010 collapse of two companies controlled by Mr Bublitz, Viaduct Capital Ltd and Mutual Finance Ltd. Following extensive investigations by the Financial Markets Authority,[3] in 2014 Mr Bublitz and Mr Morrison were charged with the offences noted at [1], along with four other men.[4]
[3]We refer to the Financial Markets Authority as the FMA.
[4]Bruce McKay, Richard Blackwood, Nicholaas Wevers and Peter Chevin were also charged. Mr Chevin pleaded guilty to all charges against him. Mr Wevers died shortly after he was charged. Mr McKay and Mr Blackwood did not appeal the costs decision. We refer to Mr McKay, Mr Blackwood, Mr Bublitz and Mr Morrison collectively as the defendants.
The two companies had the benefit of Crown guarantees under the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme. The Crown case was that the defendants, led by Mr Bublitz, entered into a series of transactions that breached limitations on related party transactions in the companies’ trust deeds and the Crown guarantees. The Crown also alleged the defendants misled potential investors and the Crown by failing to disclose these transactions in prospectuses and investment statements. It was alleged those actions were undertaken to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bublitz v R

Details

AGLC: Bublitz v The Queen [2019] NZCA 379
Case: [2019] NZCA 379
Decision Date: 22 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by two of the five defendants charged with multiple criminal counts in relation to the collapse of two finance companies, Viaduct Capital Ltd and Mutual Finance Ltd. The charges arose from the Crown’s case that the defendants breached limitations on related party transactions in the trust deeds and Crown guarantees. The defendants pleaded not guilty, but the trial was aborted after nine months by Woolford J due to “extensive” and “unprecedented” late disclosure by the Crown. The defendants applied for costs. The Judge awarded Mr Morrison $75,000 under s 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 and made an award of $50,000 under s 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to be split five ways between the four defendants and the Crown. Mr Bublitz and Mr Morrison appealed the quantum of the awards. The appeal raised five issues. The first three issues arose on Mr Bublitz’s appeal. The latter two on Mr Morrison’s. Mr Bublitz’s appeal was dismissed. Mr Morrison’s appeal was dismissed. There was no order made as to costs.

Orders