R v Borlase - [2016] NZHC 2970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-044-001286 [2016] NZHC 2970

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

REASONS FOR VERDICT OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Crown Law, Auckland
Counsel: R Mansfield, Auckland
S Lance, Auckland

R v Borlase [2016] NZHC 2970 [9 December 2016]

CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION AND VERDICTS …………………………….…….[1] B. THE STRUCTURE OF THESE REASONS FOR VERDICTS ……..[30] C. EVIDENTIAL ISSUES …………………………………………..……..[32]
D. BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION OF AN OFFICIAL – LEGAL PRINCIPLES ………………………………………………………...….[64]

E. DISHONEST USE OF A DOCUMENT – LEGAL PRINCIPLES…………………………..…………………………....….[132]

F. FACTS ……………………..……………………………………...…….[148]

G. NOONE’S CONSULTACY SERVICES (BORLASE:
CHARGES 1, 2 AND 3; NOONE: CHARGES 1, 2 AND 6) …...……[436]

H. OTHER BENEFITS TO NOONE (BORALASE:
CHARGES 4, 5 AND 6; NOONE: CHARGES 3, 4 AND 5) ...…..…..[616]

I. BENEFITS TO GEORGE (BORLASE: CHARGES 7 AND 8) .…...[707]

J. THE ALLEGED “INFLATING” OF INVOICES (BORLASE
CHARGES 9-12) ……………………………………………………….[771]

K. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………...………[834]

A. INTRODUCTION AND VERDICTS Verdicts
[1] I have today delivered the following verdicts:

(a) Murray John Noone – guilty of charges 1 – 6;

(b) Stephen James Borlase – guilty of charges 1 – 8; not guilty of charges

9 – 12.

[2] What follows is my reasons for the above verdicts.

Overview of the charges

[3] Mr Noone was charged with six charges of bribery and corruption of an official pursuant to s 105(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The charges were brought on a representative basis. They covered three periods. The first is 3 April 2006 to 23
June 2008. During this period, Mr Noone was the Director of Transport at Rodney

District Council (“RDC”). The second period spans 24 June 2008 to 31 October

2010, when Mr Noone was the Director of Infrastructure at RDC. The third period runs from 1 November 2010 to 29 July 2013, during which time Mr Noone was the Road Corridor Maintenance Manager for Auckland Transport.

[4] Mr Noone is alleged to have corruptly accepted approximately $1.2m in payments and other benefits from Projenz (2005) Limited (“Projenz”), a long standing provider of professional engineering services to RDC and Auckland Transport. The vast majority of this amount (being some $1.1m) represents payments made to Mr Noone by Projenz for consultancy services said to have been provided by Mr Noone to Projenz. The balance of approximately $84,000 represents various other benefits said to have been corruptly received by Mr Noone from Projenz, including travel, accommodation and other benefits.

[5] At all relevant times, Mr Borlase was one of two directors and shareholders of Projenz. Mr Borlase faced 12 representative charges. Eight of these charges were of bribery and corruption of an official pursuant to s 105(2) of the Crimes Act. Of

those…

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 2970
Case: [2016] NZHC 2970
Decision Date: 9 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand delivered a verdict in the case of R v Borlase, addressing charges of bribery and corruption against Murray John Noone and Stephen James Borlase. Noone, a former Director of Transport and Infrastructure at Rodney District Council (RDC) and later Road Corridor Maintenance Manager for Auckland Transport, was found guilty of six charges of bribery and corruption. Borlase, a director and shareholder of Projenz (2005) Limited, was found guilty of eight charges, including bribery and corruption, and dishonest use of a document. The court ruled that Noone had corruptly accepted approximately $1.2 million in payments and other benefits from Projenz, while Borlase was found to have caused Projenz to pay these amounts to Noone. Borlase was also found guilty of dishonestly inflating invoices submitted by Projenz to RDC. The court concluded that the benefits provided to Noone and other RDC and Auckland Transport employees were corrupt, and that Borlase had inflated the invoices to recoup the costs of these benefits. The verdicts were based on the evidence presented, including documentary records, witness testimonies, and legal principles concerning bribery, corruption, and dishonest use of documents.

Orders