R v Bublitz - [2015] NZHC 2799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-002293 [2015] NZHC 2799

THE QUEEN

v

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

Hearing:
Furtherevidence:

28 October 2015

3 November 2015

Appearances:

B Dickey and B Finn for Crown
P Davison QC for Mr Blackwood
F Pilditch for Mr Bublitz
G Bradford and H Coupe for Mr McKay
No appearance for Mr Morrison
No appearance for Mr Chevin

Judgment:

11 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

PRE-TRIAL APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 November 2015 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the
High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Keegan Alexander, Auckland Cook Morris Quinn, Auckland

Copy to: P Davison QC, Auckland
F Pilditch, Auckland
G N Bradford, Auckland
L D Morrison, Auckland
A Lloyd, Auckland

R v BUBLITZ & ORS [2015] NZHC 2799 [11 November 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Bublitz, together with four co-accused, is for trial in this Court on 9

February 2016. He faces 49 charges laid by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA):

28 under s 220 of the Crimes Act 1961; 15 under s 242 of the Crimes Act; and six charges under s 377 of the Companies Act 1993. Twelve weeks has been set aside for the Judge alone trial.

Adjourned application

[2] Mr Bublitz applies to adjourn the trial on the basis he is presently unrepresented and there are numerous defects and deficiencies in disclosure. He seeks an adjournment to enable the issues to be addressed. Although they are not expressly referred to in the application Mr Bublitz says in his affidavit that he also wishes to make other pre-trial applications.

[3] Mr Bublitz’s application is formally opposed by the Crown. While the Crown opposes the adjournment application it acknowledges that, given the nature of the charges and the scope of the trial, it will be difficult for Mr Bublitz to represent himself. If Mr Bublitz was able to obtain representation the trial would likely run more smoothly for the prosecution and the other defendants.

[4] Mr Blackwood is anxious to ensure the matter is resolved as expeditiously as possible. But he considers that, given the central role Mr Bublitz will play in the case he should be afforded a final opportunity to arrange appropriate representation to enable him to not only present an effective defence but also to ensure the efficient conduct of the trial as a whole.

[5] Mr Chevin has taken no steps in response to the application.

[6] Mr McKay abides the order of the Court but without prejudice to any issue of delay that may arise.

[7] Mr Morrison faces seven charges. He has filed a memorandum confirming that he supports Mr Bublitz’s application, particularly insofar as Mr Bublitz seeks time to make further pre-trial applications.

[8] At the conclusion of the hearing before me on 28 October 2015 I granted leave for Mr Bublitz to provide further…

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 [2015] NZHC 2799
Case: [2015] NZHC 2799
Decision Date: 11 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bublitz, the applicant, Paul Neville Bublitz, applied for an adjournment of his trial set for February 2016. Bublitz, along with four co-accused, faced 49 charges laid by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) under various sections of the Crimes Act 1961 and the Companies Act 1993. Bublitz sought the adjournment on the grounds of being currently unrepresented and due to numerous defects and deficiencies in the disclosure provided by the prosecution. The Crown opposed the adjournment but acknowledged the difficulties Bublitz would face in representing himself.

The court had to determine whether Bublitz's application for an adjournment should be granted, considering the implications for his right to a fair trial, the complexities of the charges, and the extent of the disclosure issues. The court examined Bublitz's attempts to secure legal representation, the nature of the charges he faced, and the potential impact of his unrepresented status on the fairness of the trial for all defendants.

The court concluded that the interests of justice warranted an adjournment. Bublitz's application was granted based on the extensive number of charges he faced, his central role in the proceedings, and the potential impact on the fair trial rights of all defendants. The trial was rescheduled to commence on 8 August 2016, allowing Bublitz additional time to secure representation and prepare for the trial. The court also ordered that certain sensitive commercial information contained in recent affidavits be sealed and restricted to High Court Judges only.

The final orders of the court were that the trial would commence on 8 August 2016, and a pre-trial callover was scheduled for 17 February 2016. Bublitz was required to prepare an updating memorandum for that call, and the accused were remanded on existing terms of bail to that date. The affidavits containing sensitive commercial information were sealed and restricted as per the court's order.

Orders