Goolsbee v The Queen - [2014] NZCA 148

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA629/2012
[2014] NZCA 148

BETWEEN	HENRY ALFRED GOOLSBEE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 March 2014
Court:	Wild, Goddard and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	N J Sainsbury for Appellant S B Edwards for Respondent
Judgment:	16 April 2014 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

Introduction

The appellant, who represented himself, was tried before Judge Behrens and a jury in the Nelson District Court and found guilty on one charge of obtaining the sum of NZ$97,985 by deception.[1] Prior to trial the appellant had been successively assigned four different counsel on legal aid: this was over the 19 month period following his arrest in January 2011. His relationship with the last of these lawyers, Mr Riddoch, was terminated a fortnight before trial. Mr Riddoch was then appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Although not within the traditional amicus role, Mr Riddoch also provided the appellant with a great deal of assistance throughout the trial.
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 240.
Following conviction, the appellant was sentenced by Judge Behrens to two years and three months’ imprisonment.[2] He now appeals against conviction on the ground that the trial was unfair because his defence could not have been adequately conducted without the assistance of counsel.
[2]R v Goolsbee DC Nelson CRI-2011-042-201, 2 October 2012.
Two interrelated questions were posed on appeal:
(a)In all the circumstances of how the trial was undertaken, was it unfair?
(b)Did that make a difference to the outcome?

The Crown’s case at trial

The facts as presented by the prosecution at trial are encapsulated in the following extract from the submissions to us of Crown counsel:
5. The complainant met Mr Goolsbee in Melbourne in June 2010, when she went to his home to collect two couches she purchased from him in an on-line auction. The appellant (a US citizen) was preparing to move to New Zealand with his wife and children.
6. The complainant was very taken with the appellant's family, while he impressed her as a successful businessman, with humanitarian and environmental interests similar to her own. The appellant told her he was experiencing temporary financial difficulties after a factory he established in South Australia was sabotaged. He said he was going to New Zealand to pursue new business opportunities and to write a book he had been researching for a number of years. The complainant agreed to look after their two cats while they settled in New Zealand and had regular contact with them over the next few weeks before they moved. She purchased their car from them for AUD $3000 but gave them a further AUD $14,000 by way of a loan to help them set up in NZ. Once they arrived in Nelson, in early July, the complainant lent them another AUD $19,000 to enable them to buy a car.
7.Towards the end of that month, the complainant…

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 Goolsbee v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Goolsbee v The Queen [2014] NZCA 148
Case: [2014] NZCA 148
Decision Date: 16 April 2014 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Henry Goolsbee, was found guilty by a jury of one charge of obtaining the sum of NZ$97,985 by deception. He appealed against his conviction on the ground that the trial was unfair because his defence could not have been adequately conducted without the assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeal found that the appellant’s trial was not unfair, and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the appellant’s defence was adequately articulated before the jury and well able to be understood by them. The court also found that the appellant did not appear to have been disadvantaged by absence of legal qualification or experience, as he was able to get his version of events clearly before the jury in a perfectly understandable form, and received assistance from both the Judge and the amicus curiae throughout the trial. The court further found that the Crown’s case at trial was overwhelming, and there was no particular disadvantage in any lack of legal training and experience. The court concluded that there can be no concern that the appellant’s trial was unfair or that the verdict of the jury was unsafe in any respect.

Orders