Legal Research
Cases
Mount v R

Mount v R

Case [2015] NZCA 489 19 October 2015

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA674/2014
[2015] NZCA 489

BETWEEN	ANTHONY PAUL MOUNT Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	20 August 2015 (further submissions received 14 September 2015)
Court:	Ellen France P, Courtney and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	S J Zindel for Appellant J M Webber and E J Riddell for Respondent
Judgment:	19 October 2015 at 11.45 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

B The appeal against sentence is allowed.
CThe sentence of six years nine months with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of that sentence imposed on the charges set out at [98] is quashed. In its place a sentence of six years imprisonment is substituted.
DThe sentence of nine months imprisonment on the remaining charges is confirmed, to be served concurrently.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France P)

Table of Contents
Para No

Introduction  [1]
Factual background  [3]
The case goes to trial  [15]
The Judge’s reason for verdicts  [25]
A fair trial?  [39]

(a)The circumstances in which Mr Mount came to be tried without
a lawyer  [45]
(b)     The manner in which the trial Judge presided  [52]
(i)Did Mr Mount appreciate his jeopardy?[53]
(ii)Requests for assistance  [65]

(c)The benefit of guidance from a lawyer [72]
(d)The personal characteristics of the appellant[73]

(e) and (f) The complexity and legal analysis required; the Crown and

defence cases[77]
Conclusions on fair trial[87]

Other matters [88]

Sentence [94]

Result [99]

Introduction

Anthony (Tony) Mount was convicted after a retrial before a Judge alone of 76 counts of fraud.[1] He was sentenced by the trial Judge, Judge Tompkins, to six years and nine months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of that sentence.[2] Mr Mount appeals against conviction and sentence.
[1]R v Mount DC Nelson CRI-2011-042-968, 10 December 2014 [reasons for verdicts].
[2]R v Mount DC Nelson CRI-2011-042-968, 17 December 2014 [sentencing remarks].
The principal issue raised on the appeal is whether Mr Mount had a fair trial. He says he did not, essentially because he represented himself at the retrial and was not given sufficient assistance to do so. To put this issue in context we need to first set out the factual background, the course of the proceedings and the Judge’s reasons for verdicts.

Factual background

Mr Mount was a financial consultant and investment advisor operating in Nelson. He ran this business under the name Independent Financial Consultants Ltd. This was essentially a one person operation. Over many years he managed the investment portfolios of his clients after he entered into agreements with them to purchase, monitor and sell investments on their behalf. In the majority of cases he would receive lump sums from them for investment, and appears to have had authority to sell on behalf of his clients. One client, Mrs Pullar, was wary of such an arrangement. In relation to her, Mr Mount would advise on an investment and the price and…

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 Mount v R

Details

AGLC: Mount v R [2015] NZCA 489
Case: [2015] NZCA 489
Decision Date: 19 October 2015 at 11.45 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anthony (Tony) Mount appeals against his conviction and sentence. He was convicted by Judge Tompkins of 76 counts of fraud and sentenced to six years and nine months imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of that sentence. Mr Mount’s principal argument is that he was denied a fair trial because he was unrepresented. The Court of Appeal considers Mr Mount’s appeal by reference to the factors outlined in R v Condon. Mr Mount was represented for a significant period and was familiar with the case and court processes. The Crown case was straightforward and Mr Mount was able to advance his defences effectively. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The Court of Appeal considers the sentence. The trial Judge’s approach to sentencing is flawed in two respects. First, the Judge imposed a nine month uplift to the starting sentence on the basis of Mr Mount’s conduct during the first trial, for which he was neither charged nor convicted. Secondly, the Judge imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of the sentence on the basis of the same conduct. The sentence of six years nine months with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of that sentence imposed on the charges of theft by failing to account, theft by a person in a special relationship, reproducing a document with intent to deceive and obtaining by deception of over $1,000 is quashed. In its place a sentence of six years imprisonment is substituted. The sentence of nine months imprisonment on the remaining charges is confirmed, to be served concurrently. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is allowed with the amendments set out above.

Orders