R v Harris - [2023] NZHC 2634

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-004-11829

[2023] NZHC 2634

THE KING

v

PETER ALAN HARRIS CARDEN JAMES MULHOLLAND

Hearing:
17-18 April; 20-21 April; 24 April; 26-28 April; 1-2 May; 4-5

May; 8-9 May; 12 May; 15-17 May; 22 May; 24-26 May; 29-30
May; 2 June; 6 June 2023

Appearances:

B Dickey, D Luo and K Parkash for the Crown

R Reed KC, D Salmon KC, J Cundy and T Hu for Mr Harris
D Jones KC, C Morris, S Cameron and B Shen for Mr Mulholland

Judgment:

21 September 2023

VERDICTS OF ROBINSON J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland; LeeSalmonLong, Auckland; Cook Morris Quinn, Auckland

Counsel: D Jones KC, Auckland; R Reed KC, Auckland; D Salmon KC, Auckland; T Hu, Auckland

R v HARRIS [2023] NZHC 2634 [21 September 2023]

[1]The purpose of this hearing is to deliver my verdicts in open court.

Background

[2] Messrs Peter Alan Harris and Carden James Mulholland face charges under the Crimes Act 1961. The charges arise out of aspects of their involvement in the affairs of CBL Insurance Limited (which I will refer to as CBL).

[3] Mr Harris faces all eight charges – charges 1 to 8. Mr Mulholland faces three of the eight charges – charges 2, 7 and 8. In charge 2, Mr Mulholland is charged as a secondary party to Mr Harris’ principal offending. In charges 7 and 8, Mr Mulholland is charged as Mr Harris’ co-defendant.

[4] The charges fit into two categories. Charges 1 to 5 relate to alleged breaches of directions the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) made to CBL under s 143 of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010 between 25 July 2017 and 12 February 2018. I refer to these as the RBNZ Directions charges. Charges 6 to 8 relate to a deposit of €12.5 million (€12.5m) that CBL placed with the National Bank of Samoa (NBoS) on 15 October 2014. I refer to these as the NBoS charges.

The charges

[5] The RBNZ Directions charges, in chronological order from when they are alleged to have occurred, are as follows.

(a)In charge 5, the Crown allege that on 13 October 2017 Mr Harris committed theft by person in special relationship, by executing an agreement on behalf of CBL with TexCaz Transborder Insurance Intermediaries (TexCaz) and United Specialty Insurance Company (United Specialty). The Crown allege this was contrary to the RBNZ’s requirement that CBL first obtain written permission from the RBNZ, as required by a direction the RBNZ had issued on 25 July 2017.

(b)In charge 4, the Crown allege that on 8 December 2017 Mr Harris committed theft by person in special relationship by executing a further

agreement on behalf of CBL with United Specialty and TexCaz. The Crown allege this was contrary to the RBNZ’s requirement that CBL first obtain written permission from the RBNZ, as required by the direction the RBNZ had issued on 25…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [2023] NZHC 2634
Case: [2023] NZHC 2634
Decision Date: 21 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Mr Peter Alan Harris and Mr Carden James Mulholland faced a trial on charges related to their involvement with CBL Insurance Limited. The charges stemmed from alleged breaches of directives issued by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and fraudulent activities concerning a deposit with the National Bank of Samoa. The primary legal issues involved the interpretation and application of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010 and the Crimes Act 1961, focusing on whether the defendants had committed theft by person in a special relationship and other related offences.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence. Robinson J considered whether the actions of the defendants were in compliance with the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and whether the transactions in question were indeed fraudulent or permissible under the circumstances. After evaluating the evidence, Robinson J concluded that the prosecution had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, both Mr Harris and Mr Mulholland were found not guilty on all charges against them. Mr Harris was acquitted on all eight charges, while Mr Mulholland was acquitted on charges 2, 7, and 8.

Orders