R v O'Brien

[2017] NZHC 1317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-085-14183 [2017] NZHC 1317

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL JOSEPH OʼBRIEN PATRICK FRANCIS OʼBRIEN KEVIN MARTIN COFFEY PAUL ANTHONY MAX

Hearing:

28 February-3 March; 6-10 March; 13-17 March; 20-24 March;

27-30 March; 3-7 April; 10-13 April 2017

Counsel:

G J Burston, M J Ferrier, P W Gardyne and A McIlroy for Crown

R B Squire QC for M OʼBrien

C W J Stevenson for P OʼBrien

Mr C in person
M A Corlett QC for Mr Max

Verdict:

15 June 2017

VERDICTS OF DOBSON J

R v O’BRIEN [2017] NZHC 1317 [15 June 2017]

Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ [1] The defendants.............................................................................................................................. [2] The licensed gambling regime ..................................................................................................... [6] The factual background ..............................................................................................................[11] The charges ................................................................................................................................. [25] THE OPERATOR LICENCE CHARGES............................................................................... [38]

Charge 11 .................................................................................................................................... [38]

The representations ................................................................................................................ [45] Were the representations false? .............................................................................................. [63] Were Mr Coffey’s representations false?................................................................................ [64] Did these defendants know their representations were false? ............................................... [75] Were the false representations material to DIA’s decision? .................................................. [94] Value of the operator’s licence ............................................................................................. [105] Claim of right .........................................................................................................................[119] Charge 12 .................................................................................................................................. [121] Significant influence in the management of Bluegrass ....................................................... [140] Direction of Bluegrass’ grants process ................................................................................. [151] Value of control of the grants process ................................................................................... [178] Claim of right ......................................................................................................................... [181] The elements of charge 12 against Mr Coffey ...................................................................... [182]

THE VENUE LICENCE CHARGES ..................................................................................... [190] The elements of charges 13 to 15 ............................................................................................. [196] Michael O’Brien was the “real owner” of the venues ........................................................... [199]

Acquisition of the venues ......................................................................................................... [203] Hardy’s Bar (Charge 14) ...................................................................................................... [205] The Hardware Bar (Charge 13) ........................................................................................... [222] The Terrace Tavern (Charge 15) .......................................................................................... [233]

Challenges to elements and terms of the venue charges........................................................ [246] Absence of lawful licence for the Terrace Tavern................................................................ [246] Detail in particulars wrong................................................................................................... [267]

Did Michael O’Brien have a plan or scheme to conceal his involvement in class 4 venues?

.................................................................................................................................................... [276]

Was Mr Max a party to Michael O’Brien’s plan to conceal his involvement in the venues?

.................................................................................................................................................... [280] Has the Crown proved that Mr Max was aware of Michael O’Brien’s unsuitability? ...... [281] Mr Max’s SFO interviews..................................................................................................... [310] Responses to NZCT............................................................................................................... [318] Alternative rationale for Mr Max to hold the shares in Maximum Holdings .................... [329] Tax losses a legitimate reason .............................................................................................. [338] Involvement of Michael O’Brien’s lawyer ........................................................................... [346] Others similarly involved were not charged ......................................................................... [352]

The nature of the fraudulent device or stratagem ................................................................. [360] Was the concealment material to the DIA? ............................................................................ [366] Value of the venue licences ....................................................................................................... [370] Claim of right ............................................................................................................................ [373] Summary ................................................................................................................................... [374]

INTRODUCTION

[1]      The defendants face charges under s 240 of the Crimes Act 1961 that they obtained benefits, or were parties to obtaining benefits, by false representations that were intended to deceive the Secretary for Internal Affairs (the Secretary).   Those representations arose in dealings about applications…