Hearing: 22 February 2017

Counsel:

BH Dickey for Crown
RM Mansfield and IM Brookie for Defendant Borlase
S Lance for Defendant Noone

Sentenced

22 February 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland

To: RM Mansfield, Auckland
IM Brookie, Auckland
S Lance, Auckland

R v Borlase and Noone [2017] NZHC 236 [22 February 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Borlase and Mr Noone, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand. These sentencing remarks will be transcribed and a copy of them will be made available later today.

[2] Mr Borlase and Mr Noone, you appear for sentence today having each been found guilty of charges of bribery and corruption of an official pursuant to s 105 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[3] Mr Borlase, I found you guilty of eight charges, six of which relate to the provision of payments and benefits to Mr Noone. The remaining two concern the provision of benefits to Mr George. Mr Noone, I found you guilty of six charges relating to the acceptance of payments and benefits from Mr Borlase (via the company Projenz), and these charges “mirror” the first six charges against Mr Borlase.

[4] As you will be aware, the maximum penalty for each of these charges is

seven years’ imprisonment.

[5] In these sentencing remarks, I will first summarise the factual background to your offending. Those facts are obviously well known to you and your counsel and are set out in detail in my reasons for verdicts. It is important to go through these matters as the others here in Court today and the wider public have a right to know the basis upon which I am sentencing you today.

[6] After addressing those matters, I will then address the relevant sentencing purposes and principles, and I will then consider your sentence Mr Borlase, and then Mr Noone’s.

Background to the charges

Introduction

[7] Mr Borlase and Mr Noone, you have known each other since the late 1990s. In around 1997, Mr Borlase established Projenz, which provided engineering

consulting services, particularly in relation to roading. It was originally a “one man band” organisation, though over time, other engineers were contracted as sub- consultants. In around 2000, a second director and shareholder also joined the company.

[8] Within a few years, one of Projenz’ main clients was Rodney District Council (RDC). This is when you, Mr Borlase, first met Mr George, as he was one of your primary client contacts at that time.

[9] Mr Noone, you first contracted to Projenz as a sub-consultant in 2000. This was originally in a business development and traffic safety engineering role, on an exclusive basis. This continued until around 2002, when you terminated your exclusive arrangements with Projenz. However, you continued to provide traffic safety sub-consultancy services to Projenz over the period 2002 to 2006. You also consulted to other…

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 R v Borlase

Details

AGLC: R v Borlase [2017] NZHC 236
Case: [2017] NZHC 236
Decision Date: 22 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Borlase, the defendants were found guilty of bribery and corruption charges related to payments and benefits provided to council officials. The court had to determine appropriate sentences for the defendants, taking into account the nature of the offence, its magnitude and sophistication, the amount of money involved, the period over which the offence occurred, and the impact on victims. The court also considered mitigating factors such as remorse and good character. The defendants were sentenced to five years and six months and five years in prison, respectively, to be served concurrently. The court emphasised the importance of holding the defendants accountable for their actions, promoting a sense of responsibility, providing for the interests of victims, denouncing their conduct, and deterring them and others from committing similar offences in the future.

Orders