Hall v R - [2014] NZCA 38

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 809/2012
CA 815/2012
[2014] NZCA 38

BETWEEN	MAURICE HALL Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	12 February 2014
Court:	Harrison, Asher and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	D J Blaikie for the Appellant T A Simmonds for the Respondent
Judgment:	27 February 2014 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against the fraud convictions is dismissed.
BThe appeal against sentence on the fraud convictions is dismissed.
CThe appeal against sentence on the cannabis convictions is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dobson J)

On 1 June 2012, at the conclusion of a five week jury trial in the District Court at Auckland, the appellant Mr Hall was found guilty on 11 counts in an indictment for fraudulent offending. On 7 September 2012, the trial Judge, Judge Gibson, convicted and sentenced Mr Hall to three years and six months’ imprisonment.[1] This appeal is brought both against those convictions and the sentence imposed.
[1]R v Hall DC Auckland CRI-2009-004-3103, 7 September 2012.
Subsequently on 20 November 2012, Mr Hall was sentenced in the Auckland District Court by Judge Andrée Wiltens to two years’ imprisonment on single charges each of cultivation, selling and being in possession of cannabis for supply.[2] Mr Hall had earlier entered guilty pleas to those charges. He was ordered to serve that second sentence cumulatively upon the sentence for his fraud convictions and has also appealed against that sentence.

The conviction appeal

[2]Police v Hall DC Auckland CRI-2010-004-11857, 20 November 2012.

Mr Hall and the solicitor who was acting for him in the relevant transaction, Mr Watson, who was jointly charged with Mr Hall, completed arrangements for Mr Hall to borrow significant sums from BNZ to fund the purchase of a fishing vessel in Queensland. In January and February 2006, BNZ advanced $1.6 million and $397,800 to Mr Hall. These sums were advanced in reliance on written representations that, as to the first sum, it was a portion of the purchase price of the vessel that was represented to the bank to be AUD 2,900,000 and, as to the second sum, that it represented the GST payable on the import of the vessel into New Zealand.
In fact, the vessel was being purchased for AUD 1,080,000. Mr Hall’s company as purchaser of the vessel did not account to Inland Revenue for GST on its import into New Zealand. The fraud had been facilitated by altering the purchase price stipulated in the agreement for sale and purchase of the vessel, plus the amounts involved in various aspects of the settlement of the transaction as between the solicitor in New Zealand and agents for the vendor in Queensland. The agreement and related correspondence were submitted to BNZ in support of Mr Hall’s loan application. In addition, false representations were made as to the extent of the personal resources Mr Hall had and was committing to the purchase, as well as misrepresentations as to the level of income earned…

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 Hall v R

Details

AGLC: Hall v R [2014] NZCA 38
Case: [2014] NZCA 38
Decision Date: 27 February 2014 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hall v R was brought against convictions and sentences imposed by the Auckland District Court on the appellant, Mr Hall, for fraudulent offences and for cannabis-related offences. The appeal against conviction and sentence for the fraud offences and the sentence for the cannabis-related offences was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appeal against conviction was based on four grounds, which were ultimately rejected by the court. The court found that the decision not to pursue an application for propensity evidence regarding the co-accused, Mr Watson, was appropriately made by Mr Hall of his own volition. The court also found that there was no credible risk to a fair trial caused by the omission of additional evidence on the state of relevant technology at the time, and that there was nothing in the point regarding the failure to call Mr Gilbert as a witness.

The appeal against sentence on the fraud convictions was dismissed as the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range. The appeal against sentence on the cannabis convictions was also dismissed, as the choice of cumulative sentences was entirely orthodox and appropriate, and there was no merit in the appeal against the sentence imposed for the cannabis-related offences. The court found that the substantial extent of Mr Hall's assistance should not have been taken into account on the second sentencing as it had already been given appropriate credit for it.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the fraud convictions was dismissed, the appeal against sentence on the fraud convictions was dismissed, and the appeal against sentence on the cannabis convictions was dismissed.

Orders