R v Huirua - [2022] NZHC 1262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2019-083-1508

[2022] NZHC 1262

THE QUEEN

v

TE WHITINGA MARK HUIRUA

Hearing: 27 May 2022

Appearances:

M M Wilkinson-Smith and N Turner for Crown J Waugh for Defendant

Judgment:

27 May 2022

ORAL SENTENCING REMARKS OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Whitinga Mark Huirua, you appear for sentencing today following your guilty pleas on six charges of using a forged document and one charge of carrying on a business fraudulently. The charge of using a forged document relates to s 257(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The charge of carrying on a business fraudulently relates to ss 380(1) and 373(4) of the Companies Act 1993 and has a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

R v HUIRUA [2022] NZHC 1262 [27 May 2022]

The offending

[2] The facts of your offending, Mr Huirua, are said to be broadly unique and generally are as follows.

[3] On 27 November 2003, Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi, as one of eight generally recognised iwi of Taranaki, entered into a Deed of Settlement of their Treaty of Waitangi grievances with the Crown. As part of that settlement, the iwi received
$32 million in redress.

[4] Te Kaahui o Rauru (Te Kaahui) is a charitable trust established as a governance entity for Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi. Mr Huirua is a director of Te Pataka o Rauru Ltd (Te Pataka), which was the company heading the investment arm for the iwi. Its directors, (Pookai Aronui), are responsible to ensure that the funds of the iwi are appropriately invested and managed for the benefit of members of the iwi.

[5] Mr Huirua invested funds that belonged to his iwi, Te Kaahui in his role as a director of the investment arm Te Pataka. The fraudulent business charge generally arose in part from an attempt to keep the nature of of the direct investments that Mr Huirua was making hidden from certain staff members of Te Kaahui who would have disagreed with his investment methods, despite the fact he may have been authorised to make direct investments of this type.

[6] Mr Huirua’s forgeries arose broadly it appears out of an attempt to hide the losses and means by which the funds had been lost. As to the Te Pataka investments, on Mr Huirua’s advice that the company diversified more into “direct investment” of funds. For the purposes of these investments, Mr Huirua created two companies, “Society One New Zealand Ltd” and “Imdabradaz Capital Ltd” to receive the funds he would invest. The first of these was so-called to mirror the name of a large Australian financial institution to avoid detection of his method and strategy of investing from members of Te Kaahui. In fact, Mr Huirua was a director and sole shareholder of both companies.

[7]Between 4 May 2018 and 29 May 2019 Mr Huirua caused a total of

$3.1 million to be…

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 Huirua

Details

AGLC: R v Huirua [2022] NZHC 1262
Case: [2022] NZHC 1262
Decision Date: 27 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Huirua involved the sentencing of Te Whitinga Mark Huirua on charges of using forged documents and carrying on a business fraudulently. Huirua, a director of Te Pataka o Rauru Ltd, was entrusted with the investment of funds from his iwi, Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi. He misappropriated $3.1 million for personal use and fraudulent investments, causing significant financial loss and breach of trust. The court considered the Crown's argument that the offending represented a severe breach of trust and an abuse of Huirua's position, leading to potential long-term harm to the iwi. The defense argued for a lesser sentence, citing Huirua's lack of intent to deprive the iwi of funds and his role in a seemingly authorized investment strategy. The court assessed various factors including the nature of the offending, the magnitude and sophistication, the type and number of victims, motivation, losses, and breaches of trust. The starting point for sentencing was set at four and a half years' imprisonment, considering the sophisticated and persistent deceitful actions. Mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, remorse, and previous good character resulted in a discount of 35%, leading to a final sentence of two years and eleven months' imprisonment. The court emphasized the importance of accountability, deterrence, and denunciation in its decision.

Orders