R v George - [2016] NZHC 2067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-044-1286 [2016] NZHC 2067

THE QUEEN

v

BARRIE KENNETH JAMES GEORGE

Hearing: 1 September 2016

Appearances:

B H Dickey and M S Gatland for Crown
R Hollyman and H M Z Ford for Defendant

Sentence:

1 September 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v GEORGE [2016] NZHC 2067 [1 September 2016]

[1] Mr George, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty following a sentence indication hearing to two representative charges of corruption and bribery of an official. At the sentence indication I heard extensive submissions from both the Crown and the defence regarding the nature of your offending. I also reached conclusions regarding the level of culpability that the offending produced. I do not propose to repeat those issues today. My sentence indication will form part of these remarks and is to be read alongside them.

Background

[2] It is sufficient to say that, between December 2005 and June 2012, you were employed by firstly Rodney District Council and then by Auckland Transport. You were in a division that oversaw roading contracts undertaken by both those entities. This meant that you needed to work closely with independent roading contractors who had been engaged by the two organisations to carry out roading work on their behalf.

[3] A particular culture developed within the organisations in which employees were encouraged to fraternise with the staff of the contractors. This led to you regularly attending social events with members of their staff. This developed to a situation where you accepted gifts from the roading contractor in the form of travel vouchers and liquor. In total, the gifts that you received had a value of $103,580.

[4] During 2012, you became concerned about what you considered to be an unsatisfactory ethical situation developing. You went to your employer, Auckland Transport, and raised your concerns. At that stage you did not directly indicate that you had received gifts yourself. Nevertheless, an internal investigation followed and you cooperated fully in that. Auckland Transport then involved the Serious Fraud Office and you cooperated fully in the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office as well. During this investigation, you frankly acknowledged the fact that you had received the gifts.

[5] As I indicated during the sentence indication hearing, offending of this type has numerous consequences. Ratepayers of a city such as Auckland are entitled to proceed on the basis that public spending is rigorously scrutinised. The difficulty

with accepting payments or gifts or any form of consideration from independent contractors is that the perception may arise that those contractors will be treated preferentially in the event that any dispute arises. In your case there is no suggestion that that has occurred, but nevertheless, the public perception can be that contractors will be offered favours or treated preferentially in such situations.

[6] This leads to several consequences. First, ratepayers become concerned about the manner in which their funds are being spent. Secondly, other staff members of the organisation…

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 George

Details

AGLC: R v George [2016] NZHC 2067
Case: [2016] NZHC 2067
Decision Date: 1 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v George involved a defendant who had been found guilty of corruption and bribery of an official, after having received gifts from a roading contractor over a period of seven years. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various aggravating and mitigating factors. The Crown argued for a starting point of between four and a half and five years imprisonment, while the defence submitted that a starting point of no more than three years imprisonment should be selected. The court ultimately determined that an appropriate starting point was three years nine months imprisonment, given the length of the offending, the significant sums of money involved, and the potential harm caused to the public sector.

The court also considered various mitigating factors, such as the defendant's cooperation with the authorities and his guilty pleas. The court allowed a discount of 11 months for the defendant's cooperation and a discount of seven months for his guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence of two years one month imprisonment. The court further considered the defendant's age, previous good character, and expressions of remorse, which could potentially reduce the sentence further at the sentencing hearing.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to ten months of home detention on each of the charges to which he had pleaded guilty. The court found that a sentence of home detention was appropriate given the various factors taken into account, including the defendant's cooperation with the authorities and his expressions of remorse. The defendant was also required to serve the sentence of home detention in accordance with the standard conditions set out in 80C of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders