R v Borlase - [2016] NZHC 2971

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-044-001286 [2016] NZHC 2971

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN JAMES BORLASE MURRAY JOHN NOONE

Hearing:
27-30 September,

3-7, 10-14, 17-21, 25-28 and 31 October,

1, 2 and 4, 7-11 and 14 November 2016

Counsel

B H Dickey and M S Gatland for the Crown
R M Mansfield and I M Brookie for Defendant Borlase
S Lance and K L Wendt for Defendant Noone

Judgment:

9 December 2016

VERDICTS AND SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR VERDICTS OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland

Counsel: RM Mansfield, Auckland
S Lance, Auckland

R v Borlase [2016] NZHC 2971 [9 December 2016]

[1] Mr Borlase and Mr Noone, I will now give verdicts in relation to each of the charges against you. I will then ask you to be seated. I will then explain, in summary form, why I have given the verdicts on each charge.

[2] I will then deal with consequential issues arising out of my verdicts. [3] Mr Borlase I find you:
(a) guilty of charges 1, 2 and 3, which relate to the payment of

Mr Noone’s consultancy invoices;

(b)guilty of charges 4, 5 and 6, which relate to the provision of travel, accommodation and other benefits to Mr Noone;

(c) guilty of charges 7 and 8, which relate to the provision of travel, accommodation and other benefits to Mr George;

(d)not guilty of charges 9, 10, 11 and 12, which relate to the alleged inflation of invoices.

[4] Mr Noone, I find you:

(a) guilty of charges 1, 2 and 6, which relate to the payment of your consultancy invoices;

(b)guilty of charges 3, 4 and 5, which relate to acceptance by you of travel, accommodation and other benefits provided by Projenz.

[5] Please be seated while I summarise my reasons for giving these verdicts.

[6] My Reasons for Verdicts are lengthy, extending to more than 200 pages. Necessarily what I will say now by way of this very brief summary will be incomplete. There will be differences of expression in what I say now from what is written in my full reasons. No inconsistency is intended. My full Reasons for Verdict take precedence.

[7] Copies of my full Reasons for Verdict will be handed to you, your counsel and media representatives present in Court when I leave the Court. They will also be posted on the Decisions of Public Interest part of the Courts of New Zealand website no earlier than 1pm today.

Background – bribery and corruption charges

[8] Each of Mr Borlase and Mr Noone was charged with offences pursuant to s 105 of the Crimes Act – bribery and corruption of an official. The charges spanned a seven year period, from 2006 to 2013.

[9] I should say at this point that, despite the ordinary meaning that is usually given to the words “bribery” and “corruption”, the legislation ascribes different, and less pejorative, meanings to them. As a result, the offence is framed in broad terms. In particular:

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 [2016] NZHC 2971
Case: [2016] NZHC 2971
Decision Date: 9 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Fitzgerald J delivered a verdict against Stephen James Borlase and Murray John Noone on multiple charges of bribery and corruption. The charges related to a series of payments and benefits provided by Projenz to Noone and George, who were officials at Rodney District Council and Auckland Transport. The court found Borlase guilty of charges 1 to 8 and Noone guilty of charges 1 to 6, while acquitting Borlase on charges 9 to 12.

The court deliberated on the nature of the benefits provided to Noone, which included substantial payments for purported consultancy services and other benefits such as travel and accommodation. The defence argued that these services and benefits were legitimate and related to business development and relationship building. However, the court found that Noone did not provide the claimed consulting services and that the payments were not for genuine services but were intended as corrupt benefits. The court also found that certain benefits provided to Noone and George went beyond the usual courtesies of life and were intended to influence them in their official capacities.

Fitzgerald J concluded that the evidence demonstrated that both Borlase and Noone knew the nature of the corrupt arrangements. The court rejected the defence's claims that the benefits were provided for goodwill or compassionate reasons, finding instead that they were part of a scheme to influence officials through improper means. The court emphasized that the findings were specific to the defendants and did not reflect on the practices of Rodney District Council or Auckland Transport more broadly.

The court also addressed charges related to the alleged inflation of invoices by Borlase to recoup the corrupt payments. It acquitted Borlase on these charges due to insufficient evidence to prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, the court convicted Borlase on charges 1 to 8 and Noone on charges 1 to 6, while acquitting Borlase on charges 9 to 12. Fitzgerald J noted that the findings would be detailed in the full reasons for verdict, which would be made available to the parties and the public.

Orders