R v Roberts - [2018] NZHC 548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-985

[2018] NZHC 548

THE QUEEN

v

SAUL BRENDON ROBERTS

Hearing: 27 March 2018

Appearances:

D G Johnston and N R Grieve for the Crown C Hirschfeld for the Defendant

Sentencing:

27 March 2018

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Counsel / Solicitors:
Mr D G Johnston, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Mr C Hirschfeld, Barrister, Auckland

R v ROBERTS [2018] NZHC 548 [27 March 2018]

[1] Mr Roberts, you may remain seated while I explain the sentence I am going to impose. It will take a few moments. I do want to say at the outset I am going to impose a sentence of home detention coupled with an order for reparation. One of the reasons it will take a bit of time to explain this is the sentence that I am imposing when assessed against the relative gravity of bad offending by you – and particularly the offending against Te Roopu, which is a serious breach of trust.

[2] You appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to five charges of accepting secret commissions in breach of the Secret Commissions Act 1910 (the Act). The maximum penalty in relation to each charge that applied at the time of your offending is 2 years imprisonment.1

Facts

[3] The facts of each charge need to be outlined. As I go through this I recognise there may be some slight variations in figures, but the total is not seriously in issue.

[4] In 2008 you were a trustee and salaried employee of Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority (Te Kawerau). You were the chair of the environment committee of Te Kawerau. Without any knowledge of other Te Kawerau trustees or officers you filed submissions in the name of the Authority in opposition to a proposed change to a District Plan relating to land owned by a company called Waterside Business Centre Ltd. In 2009 you made an agreement with that company that you would withdraw the submissions – or effectively withdraw the opposition – in return for payments. You received a total of $40,000. That was a single offence against Te Kawerau.

[5] In April 2012 you were employed as the assets manager of Te Roopu Taurima O Manukau Trust (Te Roopu). Te Roopu is a registered charity. It provides residential care to people with high-need intellectual disabilities. Your responsibilities included the repair and maintenance of Te Roopu’s properties and vehicles. There were four offences.

1 Secret Commissions Act 1910, s 4.

[6] In May 2012 you met with Peter Horvath, a part-time building contractor. You said you could provide him with maintenance and repair work provided he paid you 10 per cent of all invoices in cash. He agreed. Over 2 years, Te Roopu paid him approximately $366,000. From this you were paid approximately $36,500 in cash.

[7] In June 2012 you offered Kevin Lenaghan a job purchasing vehicles for Te Roopu. In…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2018] NZHC 548
Case: [2018] NZHC 548
Decision Date: 27 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Roberts, the defendant was sentenced by Woodhouse J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, following a guilty plea to multiple charges of accepting secret commissions in breach of the Secret Commissions Act 1910. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating factors of the defendant's actions, including the extent of harm to the victims, abuse of positions of trust, frequency of the offending, and the total amount of secret commissions received. The key legal issues included the assessment of the starting point for sentencing, the consideration of personal mitigating factors, and the determination of an appropriate sentence that balanced punishment and rehabilitation.

Woodhouse J began by establishing a starting point for the sentence, taking into account the severity of the defendant's actions and comparing them to other cases under the Act. The court accepted the Crown's submission of a starting point between 2 years and 2 ½ years imprisonment but ultimately decided on a lower figure due to the defendant's lack of previous convictions and other mitigating factors. The judge also considered the significant personal circumstances of the defendant, including his contributions to the community, genuine remorse, and efforts to make amends through a restorative justice conference and an agreement to repay the stolen funds.

The court found that home detention was the appropriate sentence, as it would adequately address the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentencing. The judge ordered the defendant to serve 8 months of home detention, with the possibility of leave for employment and community support activities. Additionally, the court imposed a reparation order for the defendant to pay Te Roopu Taurima O Manukau Trust a total of $164,929, with an immediate payment of $8,000 and the balance to be paid at a rate of $25,000 per annum. The court took into account the defendant's commitment to secure a loan against his property or sell the land if necessary to meet the payment obligations.

Orders