Chand v The King - [2023] NZCA 276

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA449/2019
[2023] NZCA 276

BETWEEN	PRADEEP CHAND Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

CA452/2019
BETWEEN	RICHARD KUMAR Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

CA459/2019
BETWEEN	RAKESH CHAND Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

CA460/2019
BETWEEN	VIJENDRA PRASAD Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	25 and 27 October 2022 (further memoranda received 23 November 2022)
Court:	Brown, Mallon and Downs JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield KC for Pradeep Chand, Rakesh Chand and Vijendra Prasad H M S Cheeseman for Richard Kumar K E Hogan for Respondent
Judgment:	3 July 2023 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe Crown’s application to dismiss Pradeep Chand’s appeal for want of prosecution is declined. An extension to appeal out of time is granted. Pradeep Chand’s application to adduce further evidence is declined. Pradeep Chand’s conviction appeal is dismissed. His sentence appeal is also dismissed.
BRichard Kumar’s conviction appeal is dismissed.
CRakesh Chand’s application for leave to adduce further evidence is declined. His conviction appeal is dismissed.
DVijendra Prasad’s application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed. His conviction appeal is dismissed. His sentence appeal is also dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

Table of contents

Introduction [1]

Factual background [7]

Legislation under which grants made [7]

Grantors [9]

Grantees [10]

Pradeep Chand’s conviction appeal [16]

Preliminary issues [16]

Charges [19]

Crown case: charge 3 [21]

Defence at trial: charge 3 [34]

Crown case: charge 9 [36]

Defence at trial: charge 9 [53]

Assessment [55]

Pradeep Chand’s appeal against sentence [64]

District Court sentence [64]

Submissions [69]

Assessment [71]

Richard Kumar conviction appeal [75]

Charges [75]

Appeal issue [76]

The requirements of s 220 [77]

Evidence charge 16 [84]

Evidence charge 18 [94]

Defence at trial [103]

Trial judge’s rulings and directions [106]

Was there a misdirection? [121]

Was the verdict unreasonable? [128]

Rakesh Chand’s conviction appeal [134]

Charges [134]

Crown case: charge 6 [137]

Crown case: charge 11 [151]

Crown case: charge 15 [159]

Defence at trial [169]

New evidence [175]

Assessment [180]

Vijendra Prasad conviction appeal [189]

Charges [189]

Crown case: charge 15 [190]

Defence at trial [191]

Assessment [192]

Vijendra Prasad sentence appeal [193]

District Court sentence [193]

Submissions [198]

Assessment [201]

Result [205]

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mallon J)

Introduction

The appellants, along with others, stood trial before Judge Moala and a jury in the Manukau District Court on fraud charges. Those charges arose out of applications for grants from gaming machine proceeds made by four incorporated societies associated with the appellants. There were 11 charges of theft by a person in a special relationship (the s 220 charges).[1] These related to the misuse, or fraudulent accounting, of the grants received. There were five charges of using a document dishonestly (the s 228 charges).[2] These related to false documents that were submitted in applying for grants. There were also two charges of obstructing a gambling inspector (the obstruction charges).[3]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 220.
[2]Section 228(1)(b).
[3]Gambling Act 2003, s 346(1)(d).

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 Chand v The King

Details

AGLC: Chand v The King [2023] NZCA 276
Case: [2023] NZCA 276
Decision Date: 3 July 2023 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal arose from a trial in the Manukau District Court of four appellants and others for charges relating to the misuse of grants made from the proceeds of gaming machines. The appellants were Pradeep Chand, Richard Kumar, Rakesh Chand and Vijendra Prasad. The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences. The appeal against sentence by Pradeep Chand was dismissed. Pradeep Chand's appeal against his conviction on charges of theft by a person in a special relationship and obstructing a gambling inspector was dismissed. The appeal against sentence by Richard Kumar was dismissed. His appeal against conviction on charges of theft by a person in a special relationship was dismissed. Rakesh Chand's appeal against his conviction on charges of theft by a person in a special relationship and using a document dishonestly was dismissed. The appeal against sentence by Vijendra Prasad was dismissed. His appeal against conviction on charges of theft by a person in a special relationship was dismissed. The appeal against sentence by Rakesh Chand was dismissed.

Orders