CA225/2012 CA226/2012 CA227/2012 CA228/2012
BETWEEN	THE QUEEN Appellant
AND	WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT Respondents

Hearing:	4–7 March 2013
Court:	Randerson, Wild and French JJ
Counsel:	J A Farmer QC, M A Corlett, D H O’Leary and M A Sissons for Jeffries, Reeves, Graham and Bryant C R Carruthers QC and D R La Hood for the Crown
Judgment:	30 May 2013 at 10:00am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeals against conviction (CA191/2012, CA194/2012, CA201/2012 and CA204/2012) are dismissed.
BLeave to appeal is granted to the Solicitor-General in respect of appeals CA225/2012, CA226/2012, CA227/2012 and CA228/2012 but a final decision on those appeals is deferred until we have the further reports identified in C below.
CWe direct that updated reports be provided to this Court as soon as possible for each of the respondents under s 26A of the Sentencing Act 2002, solely to confirm the availability of suitable addresses for home detention in combination with sentences of community work.
DThe sentences of reparation imposed on Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham and Lawrence Roland Valpy Bryant remain in place.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction
The indictment
Scope of the conviction appeals
The grounds for the conviction appeals
The statutory framework
The elements of the offences
Factual context

The Ferrier Hodgson report
Events subsequent to the Ferrier Hodgson report
Events in December 2007
Events post-Christmas 2007

The witnesses
The relevant parts of the amended prospectus
The Judge’s findings

Liquidity
Impairment of major loans
Adherence to lending and credit policies

First ground of appeal – misdirection on the approach to omissions under s 55 of the Act

Appellants’ submissions
Discussion and decision

Second ground of appeal – the Judge’s conclusion that the statements in the prospectus were untrue was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence

Approach on appeal
The essence of the Crown’s case
Mr Fisk’s evidence
Mr Cable’s evidence
Ms Peden’s schedule
Other matters relied upon by the Crown
The defence evidence
The appellants’ submissions
Discussion and decision
Conclusions

Third ground of appeal – misdirection in relation to the statutory defence under s 58(4) of the Act

The Judge’s findings
The appellants’ submissions
Discussion

Fourth ground of appeal – the finding that the appellants had not established the defence under s 58(4) was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence

Discussion

Result of the conviction appeals
The Solicitor-General’s sentence appeals

Introduction
The Judge’s approach to sentencing
Non-executive directors – Sir Douglas Graham, Mr Bryant and Mr Jeffries
Executive director – Mr Reeves

Overview of counsel’s submissions

Characterisation of the respondents’ culpability
The starting point and consistency of sentencing
Nathans Finance
Bridgecorp
Other cases
Starting point – discussion
Discounts for…

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 Jeffries v R

Details

AGLC: Jeffries v R [2013] NZCA 188
Case: [2013] NZCA 188
Decision Date: 30 May 2013 at 10:00am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals against conviction by the appellants (CA191/2012, CA194/2012, CA201/2012 and CA204/2012) were dismissed. The Solicitor-General was granted leave to appeal against sentences of community work imposed on the appellants (CA225/2012, CA226/2012, CA227/2012 and CA228/2012) but a final decision on those appeals was deferred until updated reports were received. The sentences of reparation imposed on Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham and Lawrence Roland Valpy Bryant remain in place. The Court found that the sentences imposed on the appellants were manifestly inadequate and did not give sufficient weight to the sentencing purposes of accountability, denunciation and general deterrence. The starting point should have been a period of imprisonment not exceeding 18 months for the three non-executive directors and not exceeding two years for the executive director. The discounts for mitigating factors should not have exceeded 25 per cent for the non-executive directors and no more than 10 per cent for the executive director. The least restrictive sentence having regard to comparable cases was a term of home detention combined with community work.

Orders