R v Bublitz - [2016] NZHC 2863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-002293 [2016] NZHC 2863

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL NEVILLE BUBLITZ BRUCE ALEXANDER MCKAY RICHARD TIMOTHY BLACKWOOD LANCE DAVID MORRISON

Hearing: 21 and 22 November 2016

Counsel:

D Johnstone, B Finn and D Robinson for the Crown
R Reed and H Ford for Mr Bublitz
G Bradford, K Barron-Afeaki and S Withers for Mr McKay
S Kilian, D Dufty and F Hawkins for Mr Blackwood
Mr Morrison in person
J Dixon as Amicus Curiae

Judgment:

23 November 2016

Reasons:

29 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J [Application for stay]

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 at 3:30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel / Parties:
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Ms R Reed, Barrister, Auckland, for Mr Bublitz
Mr G Bradford, Barrister, Auckland, for Mr McKay
Mr S Kilian, Kilian & Associates, Solicitors, Auckland, for Mr Blackwood
Mr L Morrison, Palmerston North
Mr J Dixon, Barrister, Auckland, Amicus Curiae

R v BUBLITZ & ORS [2016] NZHC 2863 [23 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] We have just completed week 16 of this Judge-alone trial. The Court has sat for more than 70 working days almost continuously. The four defendants are charged with numerous offences under the Crimes Act 1961 and the Companies Act
1993 following the collapse of two small finance companies, Viaduct Capital

Limited, and Mutual Finance Limited, in 2010.

[2] The time allocated for the trial was 12 weeks. The Crown estimates that its case will not now finish until late February next year. The length of the defence case is unknown, but the Crown submits that the two defence witnesses already signalled, an investment banker and an expert on accounting standards, should not take more than two and a half weeks. These estimates are, in my view, quite inadequate. It is entirely possible on the present progress of the trial that the evidence will not be completed until May or June next year. This is unnecessarily burdensome on all concerned.

[3] It is against this background that three of the four defendants have made applications for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, largely because of the length of the trial. I heard argument on the applications on 21 and 22 November
2016, while also continuing with the hearing of evidence on both days. On

23 November 2016, I dismissed the applications and instead dismissed Charges 2, 6,

7, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 24, 27, 28, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42 and 44 under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA). In addition, I discharged Mr Morrison on Charge 26. This left 19 charges against the four defendants. Because some of the charges are faced by more than one defendant, 32 verdicts are still required. The trial is to proceed on these charges alone. At the time I indicated that my reasons would follow. These are my reasons.

Crown Charge Notice

[4]…

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 [2016] NZHC 2863
Case: [2016] NZHC 2863
Decision Date: 23 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, three defendants, Mr Bublitz, Mr McKay, and Mr Morrison, have applied for a stay of proceedings in a criminal case against them. The defendants are charged with numerous offences under the Crimes Act 1961 and the Companies Act 1993 following the collapse of two small finance companies, Viaduct Capital Limited, and Mutual Finance Limited, in 2010. The Crown opposes the stay applications, arguing that the requirements for a stay of proceedings are not easily met and have not been met in this case. The court considered the general principles applying to a stay of proceeding and the submissions of both the Crown and the defendants. The court held that the high threshold for a stay of proceedings had not been met and dismissed the applications. The court also dismissed certain charges under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, reducing the number of charges and verdicts required. The trial is to proceed on the remaining charges. The court emphasised the importance of judicial management and control to ensure the sensible use of time and resources.

Orders