R v Robinson - [2015] NZHC 2641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-010074 [2015] NZHC 2641

THE QUEEN

v

ANDREW HROTHGAR ROBINSON

Hearing: 27 October 2015

Appearances:

K C Chang for Crown
J N Bioletti for Prisoner

Judgment:

27 October 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF COURTNEY J

R v ROBINSON [2015] NZHC 2641 [27 October 2015]

[1] Andrew Hrothgar Robinson, you have pleaded guilty and appear for sentence today on the following charges:

(a) Two charges of making a false statement in a document required under the Financial Reporting Act 1993 (FRA) knowing that statement to be false or misleading. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment or a $200,000 fine;

(b)One charge of being a person to whom the Financial Services Providers (Registration and Disputes Resolution) Act 2008 (FSPR) applied and providing brokering services when not registered to do so. The maximum penalty is 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $100,000;

(c) One charge of making a declaration for the purposes of obtaining authorisation knowing it to be false or misleading in a material particular. The maximum penalty is a $100,000 fine.

The offending

[2] These various offences arose out of an investigation started by the Financial Markets Authority in December 2012. It concerned the affairs of two companies. Strategic Planning Group Ltd (SPG) offered financial adviser services. It had three directors, of which you were one. Strategic Planning Group Investment Company (SPGI) had two directors, you and Mark Turnock. I note that Mr Turnock has also been charged with and pleaded guilty to making a false statement under the Financial Reporting Act.

[3] I note, too, that you pleaded guilty earlier this year to five charges of theft by a person in a special relationship and dishonestly using a document and were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. That offending involved the misappropriation of more than $2.6m of investor funds. Most of the funds were used to repay other investors. Several hundred thousand dollars were used for business and personal expenses. The offending continued over a period of two and a half years against 13 victims, many of whom were elderly and vulnerable. I refer to that offending

because it is relevant when I come to determine the proper end result of the sentence that I have to impose today and for the purpose of determining whether the sentences I impose today should be cumulative upon that previous sentence that you are currently serving. Having heard from both counsel it is clear to me and Mr Bioletti, who appears for you today does not take a different view, that it is the most appropriate course to impose cumulative sentences today. So I turn to look at each of the instances of offending.

Making a false statement in a document required by the Financial Reporting Act

[4] The charges of making a false statement in a document required by the Financial Reporting Act relate to financial statements prepared for SPGI for the 2008 and 2009 financial years. You and Mr Turnock signed…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2015] NZHC 2641
Case: [2015] NZHC 2641
Decision Date: 27 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Robinson was heard. Andrew Hrothgar Robinson was sentenced on charges of making false statements in financial documents, providing unregistered brokering services, and making a false declaration to obtain authorisation as a financial adviser. Robinson had already pleaded guilty to charges of theft and was serving a six-year sentence. The current charges stemmed from his actions as a director of two companies, Strategic Planning Group Ltd and Strategic Planning Group Investment Company, and the misuse of investor funds over a period of two and a half years.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for the charges, considering the objectives of sentencing, and ensuring the cumulative effect of the sentences was appropriate. The court considered the gravity of the offending, the culpability of Robinson, the impact on the victims, and the need for consistency in sentencing. The court also had to account for the sentence Robinson was already serving.

The court determined that the most significant objectives in this case were denunciation and general deterrence. It assessed the offending as serious due to the misleading financial statements and the impact on the victims, who were mostly elderly and vulnerable. The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, with a concurrent sentence of three months for the unregistered brokering services, and convicted and discharged Robinson on the charge under the Financial Advisers Act. The court considered mitigating factors such as Robinson's cooperation with authorities and his guilty plea but did not allow for further reduction due to the seriousness of the offending and the impact on the victims.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the charges related to false statements and unregistered brokering services, with the sentences to run concurrently with the existing sentence Robinson was serving. The court also convicted and discharged Robinson on the charge under the Financial Advisers Act.

Orders