R v Christie - [2019] NZHC 1460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-7736

[2019] NZHC 1460

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER JOHN CHRISTIE SIU SHUN HO

Hearing: 25 June 2019

Appearances:

R M A McCoubrey for Crown

R M Mansfield for Defendant Christie
G J S R Foley & M G Beresford for Defendant Ho

Sentence:

25 June 2019

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v CHRISTIE & HO[2019] NZHC 1460 [25 June 2019]

Introduction

[1] Siu Shun Ho and Christopher Christie you both appear for sentencing today having each pleaded guilty to two representative charges of dishonestly using a document. The charges are:

(a)that between 1 August 2016 and 31 July 2017, at Auckland, Siu Shun Ho and Christopher Christie dishonestly used a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage (Charge 1);1 and

(b)that between 1 August 2017 and 30 October 2017, at Auckland Siu Shun Ho and Christopher Christie dishonestly used a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage (Charge 2).2

[2] In each case the maximum penalty for the offence is seven years’ imprisonment.

[3] The victim in this matter is ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd (ANZ). The total amount advanced by ANZ as a result of your dishonest use of the documents exceeds
$8 million. The particulars of Charge 1 state that the documents were used to secure payments totalling $7,335,892.95 from the Bank. The particulars of Charge 2 state that the documents you used were applications for trade loan finance totalling
$1,498,818.24.

[4] The ANZ, in its victim impact statement, says that the trade loan principal lost by the Bank as a result of your offending totals $1,854,338. The Bank also calculates an amount of interest it has lost as a result of your offending, being a sum of $402,077, the legal costs it has incurred of $42,550 and liquidator’s costs just exceeding $80,000.
In total a sum of $2,379,739.00

[5] The Crown submits as regards your relative culpability that it is not necessary or appropriate to distinguish between you. The Crown submits that an end sentence

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b) (maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment) CRN 18004010959 and 18004010960.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b) (maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment).CRN18004011007 and 18004010961.

of around four years and six months’ imprisonment should be imposed for both of you with an additional, yet modest, reduction or discount being available for good character.

[6] Mr Ho, your counsel Mr Foley initially filed submissions for sentencing on 24 May 2019, and on 13 June 2019 he filed supplementary submissions relating to the likelihood of future reparation being made should the Official Assignee administering your bankruptcy realise assets that will enable those reductions to be made. Mr Foley submits that an end sentence of imprisonment of between two years and eight months, and two years and 10 months should be imposed. Mr Foley agrees with the Crown that it is unnecessary to distinguish between you and…

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 Christie

Details

AGLC: R v Christie [2019] NZHC 1460
Case: [2019] NZHC 1460
Decision Date: 25 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Siu Shun Ho and Christopher Christie appeared for sentencing having each pleaded guilty to two representative charges of dishonestly using a document. The Crown submitted that an end sentence of around four years and six months' imprisonment should be imposed for both of them with a modest reduction for good character. Ho submitted that an end sentence of between two years and eight months' and two years and 10 months' imprisonment should be imposed. Christie submitted that an end sentence of two years and five months' imprisonment should be imposed and that a distinction should be made between him and Ho to reflect his lesser culpability. The Court considered that both defendants should be treated as having the same level of culpability. Both were heavily involved in the offending and it was not possible to separate out the individual roles each defendant played. The Court considered that a starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment was appropriate. The Court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of half the end sentence on both defendants.

Orders