R v Hadfield

[2007] NZCA 414

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA287/06
[2007] NZCA 414

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL DOUGLAS HADFIELD

Hearing:19 July 2007

Court:Arnold, Potter and Venning JJ

Counsel:J R Rapley for Appellant

M A Woolford for Crown

Judgment:20 September 2007 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Arnold J)

Table of Contents

Para

Introduction  [1]
Background   [3]
Basis of appeal  [30]
Discussion – conviction appeal  [32]
(a)     Did the Judge err in allowing the amendment?  [33]

(i)     Jurisdiction  [36]

(ii)     Lateness and prejudice  [45]
(b)     Is the verdict unsustainable?  [63]

(i)     “Margin of error” argument  [64]

(ii)     Inadequacies of proof, particularly in relation to “use”                   [65]

(iii)    No proof of intent to defraud  [85]
Sentence appeal   [88]
Decision       [90]

Introduction

[1]       The appellant was convicted by Judge Crosbie, sitting as a Judge alone, on 81 counts of using a document for the purpose of obtaining a pecuniary advantage for himself, with intent to defraud, contrary to s 229A(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 (now repealed): DC CHCH CRI-2004-009-001854 29 March 2006.  Judge Crosbie sentenced him to three years imprisonment and ordered him to pay reparation of over $300,000: DC CHCH CRI-2004-009-001854 23 June 2006.

[2]       The appellant now appeals against his conviction and against the Judge’s refusal to hold a reparation hearing before fixing the amount of reparation to be paid.

Background

[3]       The appellant operated a company called Croptec Resources Limited (Croptec).  Croptec acted as an intermediary between growers and purchasers of crops suitable for silage.  Acting on behalf of Croptec, the appellant arranged for farmers to grow grass, cereal and maize and for other farmers to purchase the resulting crops for silage.  He also arranged for contractors to harvest, prepare and transport the crops. Preparation sometimes included the use of inoculants, which encouraged the growth of bacteria and made the silage more palatable.

[4]       Croptec paid growers a price per a kilogram of dry matter (DM) and charged purchasers on the same basis, albeit at a higher per kilogram price to allow for its margin.  Given that the various crops were “wet” at the time of harvest and supply, there had to be a process to determine the percentage of dry matter (DM%) in the particular crop.

[5]       The appellant would arrange for contractors to harvest the growers’ crops at the optimum time and transport them to the purchasers’ farms.  The contractors weighed the crops and supplied the resulting figures to the appellant.  They also took samples of the crop, which were sent to Lincoln University’s Animal and Food Sciences Division Analytical Services Unit  (Lincoln ASU) for analysis.  As a result of Lincoln ASU’s testing, a DM% would be identified and advised to the appellant. Contractors were paid for their work on a different basis to that applying to growers and purchasers.  The price they received was calculated by reference to the average DM%, the wet weight of the crop and the distance travelled.

[6]       These arrangements were reflected…