Myles v The Queen - [2012] NZCA 143

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA648/2011
[2012] NZCA 143

BETWEEN GILBERT COLIN MYLES
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 27 March 2012

Court: Randerson, Keane and Lang JJ

Counsel: J N Bioletti for Appellant
M J Ruffin for Respondent

Judgment: 5 April 2012 at 11.30 a.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Lang J)

Mr Myles faced a charge in the District Court of conspiring with Robert Briggs to use documents dishonestly with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage. He also faced a charge under s 117(e) of the Crimes Act 1961 of wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
After a lengthy trial before Judge Joyce QC sitting without a jury, Mr Myles was acquitted on the conspiracy charge but convicted on the charge of wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice.[1]
[1] R v Briggs DC Auckland CRI-2008-004-19028, 24 June 2011.
Mr Myles appeals against conviction. He contends the Crown failed to prove all of the elements necessary to establish the charge of wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice.
Although Mr Myles was acquitted on the conspiracy charge, the events that gave rise to that charge have some bearing on the issues raised in the appeal against conviction on the obstruction charge. For that reason we propose to set out the background to both charges.

Background to the charges

The conspiracy charge

Mr Myles was the director of companies called Dunfermline Holdings Limited (“Dunfermline”) and Mercator Libris Limited (“Mercator”). Both companies were wholesalers of books.
The Crown alleged that Mr Myles was party to a conspiracy with Mr Robert Briggs. Mr Briggs was the general manager and principal officer of a registered charitable trust called the Actives Charitable Trust (“Actives”). Actives derived substantial income through gaming machines it was authorised to operate under licences initially granted by the Department of Internal Affairs under the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1977 and, later, the Gambling Act 2003. Actives distributed a significant proportion of its income through grants it made to charities and non-profit organisations.
The Crown alleged that Mr Briggs and Mr Myles were parties to an arrangement under which Actives made grants to another charitable trust called the Southern Stars Charitable Trust (“Southern Stars”). Southern Stars was controlled by a Mr Brendon Cook, and it was involved in organising charity events for children. It gave away souvenirs, including books, to the children who attended these events. Southern Stars purchased the books from Mr Myles’ companies using the grants it received from Actives. This resulted in Southern Stars paying just over $490,000 to Dunfermline and Mercator.
The Crown contended the arrangement was dishonest, because Southern Stars purchased the books from Mr Myles’ companies at inflated prices. The Crown case was that Mr Myles paid “kickbacks” to Mr Briggs for arranging the grants to Southern Stars. Mr Briggs did not receive any payment directly from Mr Myles or his companies. Instead, the Crown alleged…

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 Myles v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Myles v The Queen [2012] NZCA 143
Case: [2012] NZCA 143
Decision Date: 5 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appeal of Gilbert Colin Myles against his conviction for wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice was dismissed. Myles was convicted following a trial in the District Court, where he was acquitted on a charge of conspiring with Robert Briggs to use documents dishonestly. The appeal focused on whether the Crown had proven all elements necessary for the obstruction charge. Myles argued that the Crown failed to prove his intent to obstruct the course of justice. The Court examined the evidence and concluded that Myles had deliberately created a manifold book with post-dated entries to mislead the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) during its investigation into Briggs' activities. The Court found that Myles' actions had a clear intent to prevent charges or to deflect the SFO from adducing evidence of the true facts. The appeal was dismissed, and Myles' conviction for wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice was upheld.

Orders