R v Goodburn - [2017] NZHC 1567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-004-005382 [2017] NZHC 1567

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHAN GRANT GOODBURN

Hearing: 7 July 2017

Counsel:

JV Angelson for Crown
MN Pecotic for Defendant

Judgment:

7 July 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
MN Pecotic, Auckland.
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

R v GOODBURN [2017] NZHC 1567 [7 July 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Goodburn, you committed serious frauds against five victims. You appear for sentence after pleading guilty on 9 June 2017. There are six charges, all obtaining by deception. The maximum penalty for each is a seven year prison term.

The facts

[2] The facts are important.

Victim 1

[3] You met the first victim at a tennis club in 2000. A friendship developed. In

2008 the victim came to you with an investment proposal. You countered with one of your own—and one that was bogus. You told the victim you could purchase shares and options in an Australian media company at a reduced rate through your role as a general manager of a media collective in New Zealand.

[4] On 19 December 2008, the victim paid you $190,000. Three days later he paid you a further $91,247. He gave you the funds on the basis you would buy shares and options in an Australian company. Instead, you used the money for your own purposes.

[5] Between December 2008 and November 2009 you approached the victim on three occasions. On each you made the same representation: you could purchase shares and options at a reduced rate. He believed you. Over three or four occasions, he gave you a total of $456,727 so you could buy the alleged shares and options.

[6] In or around August 2010, you returned $6,000 to the victim on the basis you could not purchase the full amount of shares. You returned another $10,000 in November that year.

[7] In the middle of 2011, this victim began to question you about the alleged investments. You deflected his inquiry with lies. Worse, you told him the Serious Fraud Office, or SFO, had begun an investigation in relation to the investments on the basis they involved insider trading. You told him the SFO would eventually

pursue him. And, he may go to prison. You told the victim you could keep the SFO at bay, but in return, he needed to financially support you and your family. You said this was because the SFO had restrained your finances. In other words, you told more lies, and in doing so, falsely represented the victim had committed crimes which could lead to his incarceration.

[8] Between January 2012 and October 2015, the victim paid you a total of

$225,133.34. You used some of this money in relation to two unrelated fraud charges for which you were sentenced in the District Court in 2014. I return to this point later.

[9] In November 2015 the victim went to the SFO overwhelmed with stress. He learnt there had never been an investigation. And, you had…

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 Goodburn

Details

AGLC: R v Goodburn [2017] NZHC 1567
Case: [2017] NZHC 1567
Decision Date: 7 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Goodburn involved Stephan Grant Goodburn, who was sentenced following his guilty plea to six charges of obtaining by deception. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Goodburn's extensive fraudulent activities spanning over a decade, which involved five victims and resulted in losses of over $1.2 million. The primary legal issue was to establish a suitable starting point for sentencing, considering factors such as the nature and magnitude of the offending, the number and circumstances of the victims, and the breach of trust involved.

The court found that Goodburn's crimes were large-scale but relatively unsophisticated serial frauds. Despite his claims of financial hardship, the court determined that his offending began well before his bankruptcy in 2011. The court also highlighted particularly cynical and dishonest behaviour, such as Goodburn's manipulation of his first victim's fear of potential imprisonment, which extended his offending by four years. The court adopted a starting point of six and a half years' imprisonment, slightly higher than the Crown's suggestion, due to these aggravating factors. Considering Goodburn's extensive criminal history and his offending while on bail and serving sentences for earlier frauds, the court uplifted the starting point by 15 months. While mitigating factors such as his guilty plea were acknowledged, the court found insufficient evidence of genuine remorse or significant cooperation with authorities.

The final orders of the court were that Goodburn be sentenced to six years and two months of imprisonment for the first charge, three and a half years for the second charge, and two years for each of the remaining charges, all to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of six years and two months.

Orders