Legal Research
Cases
R v Bublitz

R v Bublitz

Case [2019] NZHC 592 27 March 2019

Breach of Trust

Unconscionable Conduct

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2014-004-2293

[2019] NZHC 592

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL BUBLITZ BRUCE MCKAY

RICHARD BLACKWOOD

Hearing: 27 March 2019

Appearances:

DG Johnstone for Crown

SJ Lance, SNB Wimsett for Defendant, P Bublitz

GNE Bradford and SD Withers for Defendant, B McKay SM Kilian and R McCausland for Defendant, R Blackwood

Sentence:

27 March 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v BUBLITZ [2019] NZHC 592 [27 March 2019]

Introduction

[1] Paul Bublitz, Richard Blackwood and Bruce McKay: you appear for sentence after having been found guilty, on 5 February 2019, after a Judge-alone trial, of the following charges:

(a)Mr Bublitz – you were found guilty of four charges of theft by a person in a special relationship1 and two charges of making a false statement as a promoter of securities.2 You were acquitted on six other charges of theft by a person in a special relationship.

(b)Mr McKay – you were found guilty of three charges of theft by a person in a special relationship. You were acquitted on one charge of making a false statement as a promoter and on one charge of making a false statement to a trustee for debenture holders.3

(c)Mr Blackwood – you were found guilty of four charges of theft by a person in a special relationship and you, also, were acquitted on one charge of making a false statement as a promoter and on one charge of making a false statement to a trustee.

[2] When I delivered my verdicts, I accepted a request by Mr Kilian that no convictions be entered. None of you, however, has applied to be discharged without conviction, which is a realistic approach.

[3] I therefore enter convictions on each of the charges on which you have been found guilty, that is:

(a)Mr Bublitz – Charges 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

(b)Mr McKay – Charges 10, 11 and 12.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 220 and 223(a); the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 242; the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Companies Act 1993, s 377.

(c)Mr Blackwood – Charges 10, 11, 12 and 13.

I discharge you on the charges on which you were acquitted.

Factual background

[4] I discussed the factual background to your offending in my judgment dated 21 February 2019,4 in which I set out the reasons for the verdicts I had delivered orally on 5 February. Although I appreciate that you are fully aware of the background to the verdicts, and to the findings of fact on which I have relied, I am obliged to summarise them again, in the public interest, to give context to the sentences I am about to impose. I shall do so as briefly as possible.

[5] On 13 May 2010, finance company Viaduct Capital Limited (Viaduct or VCL) was placed into receivership by the trustee for the finance company’s debenture holders. On 14 July 2010,…

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 Bublitz

Details

AGLC: R v Bublitz [2019] NZHC 592
Case: [2019] NZHC 592
Decision Date: 27 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bublitz involved three defendants: Paul Bublitz, Bruce McKay, and Richard Blackwood. They were found guilty of various charges including theft by a person in a special relationship and making false statements as a promoter of securities. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for the defendants, taking into account the nature of the offending, the culpability of each defendant, and various aggravating and mitigating factors. The court set starting points for each defendant based on the gravity of their offending and the circumstances of the case. After considering the delay in the proceedings, personal circumstances, and other factors, the court applied discounts to the starting points and imposed sentences, with Bublitz receiving a custodial sentence and the other two defendants receiving sentences of home detention.

Orders