R v Ryan

[2013] NZHC 501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2009-004-028345 [2013] NZHC 501

THE QUEEN

v

COLIN GREGORY RYAN ROBERT GORDON SUTHERLAND OWEN FRANCIS TALLENTIRE

Charges:         Distributed a prospectus including an untrue statement x2

Distributed an advertisement including an untrue statement x1

Plea:               Guilty

Appearances:  N R W Davidson QC, N Williams and K Chang for Crown

D P H Jones QC, A M Callinan and A E Murray for Prisoners Ryan and Sutherland

N S Gedye, T P Mullins and S Ellis for Prisoner Tallentire

Sentenced:     15 March 2013

Ryan –7 months home detention and 300 hours community work; Sutherland  –  6  months’ home  detention,  together  with  300  hours community work.

Tallentire – 12 months’ imprisonment, cumulative on current sentence

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Auckland Simpson Grierson, Auckland Lee Salmon Long, Auckland

Copy to:            D P H Jones QC, Auckland

N S Gedye, Auckland

R V RYAN & ORS HC AK CRI-2009-004-028345 [15 March 2013]

[1]      Colin Gregory Ryan, Robert Gordon Sutherland and Owen Francis Tallentire, you have each pleaded guilty to two charges under s 58(3) of the Securities Act 1978 and one representative count under s 58(1) of that Act.  The maximum penalty for the offending in each case is five years’ imprisonment.

[2]      The  charges  to  which  you  have  pleaded  guilty  to  arise  out  of  your involvement as directors of Capital + Merchant Finance Ltd (CMF).

[3]      CMF  was  a  finance  company.     It  funded  its  financing  of  property developments  by  inviting  investments  in  debenture  stock  from  members  of  the public under registered prospectuses and investment statements.

[4]      The three of you, together with Mr Nicholls, were directors of CMF at all relevant times.  Mr Douglas was also a director until February 2007.  Mr Sutherland you were only appointed a director on 30 November 2006 and Mr Ryan on 19

December 2006.

[5]      There were two registered prospectuses issued underlying the charges, one on issue between 20 December 2006 and 9 September 2007, the other on issue between

10 September 2007 and 23 November 2007.   Both contained false and untrue statements.   Also while you were directors CMF issued advertisements which included untrue statements.

[6]      CMF was placed into receivership on 23 November 2007.  As at the date of receivership it owed approximately 7,000 secured debenture holder investors approximately $167 million.

[7]      Between 20 December 2006 and 9 September 2007, the period relating to the first count, approximately $56,800,000 was either invested or reinvested under that prospectus.  With accrued interest as at the date of receivership the value of those investments was in excess of $72 million.  From 10 September 2007 to the date of receivership approximately $32 and a half million was invested or re-invested. As at the date of receivership, including interest, those investments totalled in excess of

$33,100,000.  During the period the false advertisements were before the public, in

excess of $23,400,000 was invested.  As at the date of receivership the investments relating to that period with interest totalled in excess of $24,300,000.

[8]      In summary the 2006 prospectus included the following untrue statements which misrepresented the quality and the risk of the investments in CMF debenture stock.

Lending to related parties

[9]      The 2006 prospectus represented any related party investment would only be undertaken on the basis of compliance with the financial covenants and undertakings recorded in the trust deed.   It also represented that all transactions with related parties were entered  into in  the ordinary course  of business  and  undertaken  on commercial terms no more favourable than those offered to non-related parties. Those statements were false.

[10]     Transactions with related parties were entered into but were not within the ordinary course of business or on arm’s length terms.   The transactions involved were known as the Clyde 1 and 2 transactions, the Numeria 2 transaction, and loans to Ultratone.

[11]     The Clyde 1 and 2 transactions together with a third transaction known as Clyde 3 resulted in the transfer of the beneficial ownership and control of the CMF group and another group known as the Cymbis Group from Nicholls and Douglas to you Mr Tallentire.

[12]     On or about 30 March 2007 CMF purchased Numeria Leasing Ltd from a related party, Numeria Finance Ltd for $8,290,000.  That was done in order to meet ANZ’s requirement that Numeria Leasing Ltd no longer be a part of the Numeria Finance Charging Group.  The Numeria 2 transaction was not in the ordinary course of business of CMF as a prudent member for a number of reasons.  Nor was it at arm’s length.

[13]     Ultratone Holdings Ltd was originally incorporated under the name Cymbis New Zealand Ltd but changed its name in December 2006.  Mr Tallentire, you were appointed director on 14 December 2006.   Messrs Douglas and Nicholls were directors from July 2004 until 14 December 2006.   Ultratone had been financed entirely through loans from CMF since at least 2004.  The repayment date for the loans was progressively extended.

[14]     As at receivership of Ultratone in March 2008 it had borrowed approximately

$9.7 million from CMF.  It used the bulk of the money received to fund CFAL, an Australian finance company.   Mr Ryan, you signed CFAL minutes approving the conversions to redeemable preference shares on a number of dates.  Mr Sutherland you signed a CFAL minute approving the conversions to redeem all preference shares on at least one occasion.

[15]     It should have been apparent to all that from the perspective of Ultratone and therefore CMF, Ultratone’s financial position and profile was unsustainable.

Liquidity

[16]     In addition the 2006 prospectus represented that CMF monitored its liquidity cash position on a continuous basis and planned its operating activities to ensure a balanced liquidity position.  There was little evidence of any regular or continuous monitoring of CMF’s liquidity in its financial records.  It was only from July 2007 until its receivership four months later that weekly cash flow reports were prepared and circulated.   From July 2007 at the latest it should have been clear to you as directors that the cash flow of the company was unsustainable.

Fortress

[17]     In about July 2007 a dispute arose between Fortress, a funder of Capital + Merchant Investments Ltd, a party related to CMF to purchase the interests and loans from CMF.  In July 2007 a dispute arose between Fortress and CMF.  The dispute was a material matter which had a potential significant effect on CMF’s liquidity and its compliance with the trust deed.  It was not disclosed as it should have been.

[18]     The 2006 prospectus also represented all loans were actively monitored by CMF’s credit committee on a regular basis.  During 2007 as members of the credit committee, you approved numerous CMF loans for rollover instead of enforcing the security and crystallising the loans.

[19]     The  2007  prospectus,  the  subject  of  the  second  charge,  also  included  a number of untrue statements.

Lending to related parties

[20]     The 2007 prospectus represented that CMF was required to assess related party loan applications as if they were arms length parties independent of the company  and  represented  that  any  related  party  investment  would  only  be undertaken on the basis of compliance with financial covenants and undertakings recorded in the trust deed. The statements were untrue.

Liquidity and cash flow

[21]     The 2007 prospectus also represented that current reinvestment rates along with the CMS policy of retaining cash reserves by reduced lending and the use of other funding facilities were more than sufficient to off-set the slowing up of funds inflow and that CMF actively managed its financial assets and liabilities to ensure net exposure to liquidity risk was minimised and was reviewed on an ongoing basis. Those statements were untrue.

Management of loans

[22]     The 2007 prospectus also represented all loans were actively monitored by CMF’s credit committee regularly and that any request by a borrower to roll over or extend their loan was subject to the credit criteria of CMF and was treated to the same level of scrutiny as an original loan application. Those statements were untrue.

[23]     The 2007 prospectus next represented that no loans were impaired and no provision was required for past due assets. At the time the prospectus was registered there were already a number of loans that were clearly impaired.

No material adverse circumstances

[24]     The 2007 prospectus further represented that no circumstances had arisen that materially adversely affected:

– the profitability of CMF;

– the value of its assets;  or

– its ability to pay its liabilities due in the following 12 months. Those statements were untrue.

[25]     The representative advertisement charge refers to a number of documents. First, the 2006 investment statement dated 15 August 2006 which included a number of misleading statements about related party lending, liquidity and cash flow, and loan management, which had the effect of misrepresenting the quality and risk of investments in CMF to members of the public.

[26]     The 2007 investment statement dated 10 September 2007 included the same untrue statements which again misrepresented the quality and risk of investments in CMF.

[27]     Next, the advertisement of 15 September 2007 published in the Dominion Post advertising CMF’s capital secured debenture stock included an untrue statement regarding the insurance cover relating to capital secured debenture stock.

[28]     Finally, a letter of 19 November 2007 distributed to members of the public advertising CMF’s capital secured debenture stock and investment debenture stock contained an untrue statement regarding the liquidity and cash flow.   The letter clearly misrepresented the quality and risk of investments in CMF to members of the public, a matter of days before its receivership.

[29]     I turn to a summary of your personal circumstances.

Mr Ryan

[30]     Mr Ryan you are 66 years old.  You are married and live with your wife in Brisbane.  You are an Australian citizen.  You have no close friends or relatives in New Zealand.  You have three adult children.  You have significant health issues and have a rare medical condition.  I have seen the letters to the Court describing that condition and the need to ensure your treatment for it.  This morning I have been presented with affidavit evidence outlining suggested options for your ongoing treatment.

[31]     You hold professional qualifications in accountancy and law and are a very experienced businessman.   You have served as Deputy Chairman of the Port of Brisbane, been on the Brisbane Airport Board, Executive Chairman of CMI, and the Board of Softlink. Your only Board appointment in New Zealand was at CMF.

[32]     During your working career you have done considerable good works.  You have acted as a Chairman of the Board of the Royal Children’s Hospital in Brisbane from 1983 until 2011.   You established the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation which raised over A$180 million in funds for medical research and specialist equipment and services.   You also established the Queensland Children’s Medical Research Institute in partnership with the Children’s Hospital and the University of Queensland. You were its inaugural Chairman.  In 2004 you were awarded the Order of Australia for your services in relation to children’s health.

[33]     The pre-sentence report records your struggle to deal with the situation that you now find yourself in.  Obviously this is your first offending of any kind.

[34]     Your previous good character is confirmed by the numerous and glowing references written by people of standing in the community to support you.

Mr Sutherland

[35]     Mr Sutherland, you are 65 years old.  Although originally from New Zealand you are now an Australian citizen since relocating to Queensland in 2000.  You have three children, all of whom live in Australia or in the United States.   You hold a degree in Economics and Management from the University of Otago. You have been a director of over 20 publicly listed companies in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. You have successfully carried out a number directorships.

[36]     This is your first offending.

[37]     The  pre-sentence  report  records  you  have  accepted  your  culpability  but believe you were let down by the executives and others in CMF.  It also records your offer of reparation.

[38]     Again there are numerous references and letters of support from people that you have worked with and who clearly admire and respect you.

Mr Tallentire

[39]     Mr Tallentire, in your case, in addition to the charges under the Securities Act that you are for sentence on this morning, you have previously been found guilty and sentenced by this Court in relation to two charges under s 220 of the Crimes Act

1961 arising out of your directorship and involvement in CMF.  You were sentenced

to five years’ imprisonment by Wylie J in this Court on 31 August 2012.

[40]     At that time the Judge recorded you were 65 years old, were supported by your family and had a close relationship with your family.  You have no savings and are in no position to offer any reparation.   You have written to the Court for the purposes  for  this  morning’s  sentence.  I  accept  counsel’s  submission  the  letter discloses that you have insight into the effect of your offending.  You say you are

remorseful, and that you have had a long time to reflect on the losses that the investors have had to bear.  You yourself have reached retirement age.  Your lack of ability to work and create anything for the future for yourself and your family is very real.  You say you now realise and accept that the information was untrue and you should have taken more care and consideration in the wording of the prospectuses and advertisements.  You say you sincerely regret your actions or lack of them and apologise to the people affected and ask for their forgiveness.  I have also seen the letters that were presented on your behalf in support by way of references at the previous sentencing and have considered the material counsel has made available for me this morning.

Submissions – Crown

[41]     I turn to the respective summary of submissions.

[42]     In relation to both you Mr Ryan and Mr Sutherland the Crown accept the sentencing indication given by this Court that starting points of around three years’ imprisonment or shortly less would be appropriate, with perhaps the slightly lesser starting point  for Mr Sutherland.   The Crown  accepts  that  a sentence of home detention with reparation is available to the Court.

[43]     In relation to you, Mr Tallentire, the Crown submits that a further cumulative sentence of 12 months should be imposed on your existing sentence to reflect the totality of your offending overall.

[44]     For you, Mr Ryan and Mr Sutherland, Mr Jones has argued strongly for a sentence somewhat less than home detention or for a reduced sentence of home detention combined with an order for community work.

[45]     In your case Mr Tallentire, Mr Gedye has submitted that a sentence of no more than an additional period of between four and six months’ imprisonment would be sufficient to meet the purposes and principles of sentencing in this case.

[46]     In sentencing you all I am required to take into account the purposes and principles  of  the  Sentencing  Act.  In  the  present  case  the  purposes  that  are

particularly relevant are:

to denounce your offending and to deter others from committing the same

and similar offences;

to hold you accountable to the members of the community for your actions

and omissions;

to provide for the interests of the victims of your offending;  and

topromote in you a sense of responsibility for and an acknowledgement of the harm your actions have caused to the victims.

[47]     Reading the pre-sentence reports I consider there is a degree of an attempt by you to minimise your offending in your discussion with the probation officers but I accept that you all now have some appreciation at least for the effect that your offending has had on the victims, the investors.  I have read a significant number of victim statements that have been put before the Court.  Each one of them discloses a personal story of loss, breach of trust, hopelessness and despair experienced by the investors, most of whom were retired, or nearing retirement and who now face years of hardship because of your failings.

[48]     I do not propose to read out the statements in full but I just refer to some of the comments made in them that encapsulate the effect of your offending on the victims:  “betrayed and angry; worried and anxious about the future;  lived modestly all our lives in order to accumulate some savings towards retirement, now lost; complete  devastation  caused  by  the  guilty  directors  of  CMF;    traumatised  – maximum stress;  lost confidence in people and generally life;  I will never recover financially, physically or emotionally;  constantly concerned about how I can support my family;  suspicious and less trusting with people who are best placed to advise; suffering a long period of depression;  devastated that our funds have just vanished, my husband’s health has suffered as a result”.

[49]     Those are just a small selection of the statements from the numerous victims as to the effect that your offending has had on them.  The comments are repeated throughout the numerous victim impact statements before the Court.

[50]   I also consider the following principles of sentencing assume particular importance in this case:

(a)      the need for the sentences to reflect the gravity of the offending, including your respective culpability;

(b)the requirement to take into account the seriousness of the type of offending in comparison with other offences which is indicated by the maximum penalty prescribed by Parliament of five years’ imprisonment for offending of this nature;

(c)      the need for consistency in sentencing, a matter that counsel has addressed in submissions.

[51]     There is, I accept, a need for similar sentences to be imposed on people who commit like offences and also the need for sentences imposed on co-offenders to reflect their varying degrees of culpability.

[52]     In that regard I make it clear to you Mr Tallentire, as you would have heard from the discussion with counsel, that I consider you to be in a different position and to be more culpable than Mr Ryan and Mr Sutherland in this case.   I accept that Messrs Ryan and Sutherland both had an honest belief the statements in the prospectus  and investment statements were correct but  in the  circumstances  the belief was not reasonable.   On the other hand, Mr Tallentire you must have been aware that a number of the statements in both prospectuses and the advertisements were false. You had no basis to believe otherwise.

[53]     I also accept that neither you Mr Ryan nor you Mr Sutherland were directly involved in the Clyde or Numeria transactions, however the related party loans were increased  with  your  approval  and  you  also  agreed  to  accept  further  lending  to

Ultratone when that company’s liabilities exceeded its assets.   Further, while you may have taken steps to tighten the lending criteria you were party to the rolling over of a number of delinquent loans.

[54]     In assessing the appropriate sentence for you I have of course reviewed and considered the sentences imposed for similar offending by other company directors.[1]

[1] R v Hotchin HC Auckland CRI-2009-092-20927, 4 March 2011;  R v Moses HC Auckland CRI-

2009-004-01388, 2  September 2011;    Doolan v R  [2011] NZCA 542; R v  Davidson HC Auckland CRI-2008-004-29179, 7 October 2011;  R v Urwin [2012] NZHC 715; R v Roest and Steigrad [2012] NZHC 1086; R v Petricevic [2012] NZHC 785; R v Graham [2012] NZHC

575;   R v Kirk DC Auckland CRI-2009-004-24026, 21 December 2010;   R v Bowden DC Auckland CRI-2009-004-24026, 21 December 2010.

[55]     I note in particular the comments of the Court of Appeal in Doolan v R where the Court observed that offending in breach of s 58 of the Act fits along a continuum from the most serious dishonesty to the least, which could include cases of innocent misrepresentation or lesser degrees of carelessness.  The Court also noted it was not appropriate to draw bright lines between the types of offending along that continuum and that the categories tend to shade into one another.

[56]     In the Doolan and Moses case, which involved gross negligence, the Court considered the Judge’s starting point of three years, three months’ imprisonment could have been said to have been on the light side.

[57]     I note Mr Jones’ submission for you Messrs Ryan and Sutherland that your offending could be categorised as innocent misrepresentation.  I cannot accept that it can be minimised to that extent.   As you have heard from my discussion with counsel I consider that your offending is properly categorised as approaching gross negligence, particularly from the mid part of 2007.   You failed to carry out your obligations as directors.

[58]     The most relevant comparison I consider for both you Mr Ryan and Mr Sutherland is the case of Mr Steigrad in Bridgecorp.   Like you Mr Steigrad was a non-executive director based in Australia.  This Court accepted that Mr Steigrad like you had not acted dishonestly and did not intentionally intend to mislead investors.

Nor was he motivated by self interest or subject to any conflict of interest.   His

offending that he convicted of was for a relatively short duration extending over no more than a number of months.   In his case this Court took a starting point for sentence of three years’ imprisonment.    His offending was categorised as approaching gross negligence.  The Court of Appeal accepted the starting point on his appeal against sentence.

[59]     I do not propose to traverse the facts of the other particular case that have been referred to as I have a clear view on the appropriate sentences for you in this case.

Mr Ryan

[60]     Mr Ryan I start with you.  I consider that your failure was, like that of Mr Steigrad as I said approaching gross negligence, particularly as 2007 went on.  The appropriate starting point for your sentence is three years’ imprisonment as I have indicated.

[61]     There are no personal aggravating factors.  There are, however, a number of personal mitigating factors.   They include of course your previous good character which  is  confirmed  by  the  material  I  have  referred  to.    I  also  accept  you  are genuinely remorseful.   You have also made an offer of reparation in the sum of

$100,000.

[62]     Mr Jones has emphasised in his submissions the further mitigating factor of the co-operation you provided to the Crown after your plea.  The Crown considers the assistance was not substantial.  Mr Jones submits it was and infers it led to guilty pleas by co-accused.  I accept your co-operation was genuine and in accordance with the indication given to the Court.  It would have been of assistance if the matter had proceeded to trial for the other accused and may have had some impact on others’ decisions to plead guilty.   However, I did take that anticipated co-operation into account on the basis that it would be of some value when discussing the sentencing indication I gave you.

[63]     Mr Jones also emphasised your personal circumstances, your health and the fact  that  you  are  an Australian  citizen  without  family or  close  friends  in  New Zealand, so that a service of a sentence of home detention in New Zealand will be more severe for you than an ordinarily resident New Zealander.

[64]     Mr Jones noted there was community service available and submitted you would be able to carry out community work.

[65]     For  your  previous  good  character,  your  remorse,  the  assistance  to  the authorities and the tangible offer of reparation of $100,000 a reduction in the starting point of one-third or 12 months is appropriate.   I consider for your guilty plea a reduction in the order of 10 to 15 per cent would be also available.  That would lead to a nominal end sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.

[66]     As I indicated, however, I accept home detention is the appropriate sentence for you, taking account of the purposes and principles of the Act and also taking into account the mitigating factors I have referred to.  Despite your health and the fact you are an Australian citizen and the hardship that there will be to you, I consider you must serve a sentence of home detention in New Zealand.  Your offending has affected a number of New Zealand citizens and anything less than a sentence including home detention would not be sufficient to address the purposes and principles  of  the  Act.    With  a  nominal  sentence  of  21  months’ imprisonment normally a sentence of 10 to 11 months’ home detention would follow.

[67]     However, I am persuaded by Mr Jones’ submissions that given the strong mitigating factors it may be appropriate to reduce that sentence of home detention and combine it with a sentence of community work.

[68]     Mr Ryan please stand.  Mr Ryan, on the charges to which you have pleaded guilty and been convicted, you are sentenced to a sentence of home detention for seven months.  You are also to serve 300 hours community work.  In addition you are to pay $100,000 reparation.  That sum is to be paid to the Registrar of this Court within 60 days.   The terms of the home detention – I note the advice from the Probation Service that it is suggested the sentence commence on Monday 18 March

2013.  I accordingly direct that on the commencement date of the sentence, 18 March

2013, you are to travel to the address of apartment 512, 83 Halsey Street, The Viaduct, Auckland, and await the arrival of the monitoring company and probation officer.  You are to reside at that address during the course of your home detention sentence and not to leave it without the prior written approval of the probation officer.   I record that arrangements will have to be made for you to attend your community work during the course of that sentence.  I also record that on the basis of the medical  information  and  evidence before  this  Court  that  while it  would  be possible for you to be treated in New Zealand it would be difficult and it is, I am satisfied, preferable that you be allowed to travel to Australia on a regular basis during the course of your sentence to enable you to have and undergo the treatment required for your condition.  I endorse any arrangements that the probation officers can make to facilitate that treatment in Australia. That’s all, you may be seated.

Mr Sutherland

[69]     Mr Sutherland, as I indicated in the sentencing indication, the appropriate start point for you may be slightly less than Mr Ryan given your marginally less involvement as acknowledged by the Crown.

[70]     I take a start point for you of two years nine months’ imprisonment.  With the exception of Mr Ryan’s personal health issues, the mitigating factors in your case are very similar to his, although the reparation is somewhat less.

[71]     I give  you  a credit for 12 months for the mitigating factors  referred  to, namely your previous good character, remorse, co-operation with the authorities, and the reparation.

[72]     You are also entitled to a further reduction of between 10 and 15 per cent on the resulting notional sentence for your guilty plea.  That would lead to a notional sentence in your case of 18 months’ imprisonment. Again, however, I have indicated home detention is appropriate.   You have also made some arrangements for community work and again on the basis of the submissions advanced on your behalf I accept that is an appropriate combination of sentences.

[73]     Mr Sutherland please stand.  In your case, on the charges to which you have pleaded  guilty  and  been  convicted,  I  impose  a  sentence  of  six  months’ home detention, together with 300 hours community work.  You are also to pay reparation of $60,000.  That is to be paid to the Registrar of this Court within 60 days.  You are to serve the home detention sentence at 1490 Ararimu Road, Ararimu.  You are to travel to that address following the close of Court today and await the arrival of the probation officer to engage the sentence of home detention.  That’s all, you may be seated.

Mr Tallentire

[74]     Mr Tallentire, as I have said, I consider you to be in a different position to Messrs Ryan and Sutherland.  You were a director for a considerably longer period of time.  You were a director well before the issue of the first prospectus containing the misleading statements.  You were also personally involved in a number of the transactions  which  made  the  statements  in  the  prospectus  untrue.    You  were intimately  involved  in  the  Clyde  1  and  2  transactions  which  were  designed  to transfer the ownership of the CMF Group to you.  You also must have known the Ultratone transactions were not commercially viable.

[75]     To that extent and having reviewed the other sentencing authorities I consider your position to be similar to the position of Mr Urwin in Bridgecorp.  The starting point for his sentence I note was three and a half years’ imprisonment.  In the case of Mr Petricevic in the same case, who was also well aware the statements were untrue the Court took a starting point of four and a half years and in Mr Ludlow’s[2] case four years.  The Crown has argued for four years for you also.  I am not able to accept the submission made on your behalf that your offending could be categorised as gross negligence.   I would put it above that.   In the circumstances I consider a starting

point of three years, six months’ imprisonment would be appropriate to reflect your culpability in relation to the offending under the Securities Act.

[2] R v Ludlow HC Auckland CRI-2008-004-20412, 26 January 2012.

[76]     You are of course serving an existing sentence.  The Court’s approach must be to consider what the appropriate sentence would have been if you were sentenced

on all offences at one time.  On that basis and given Wylie J took a start point of six years for the other offending the Court would have started with a sentence of nine and half years’ imprisonment for all the offending.   Having regard to the totality principle, the starting point would have been reduced to something in the region of seven years, three months before taking account of mitigating factors.

[77]     In sentencing you Wylie J identified the mitigating factors as your previous good character and remorse and reduced the starting point by just over 15 per cent or

12 months to take account of that.  Nothing has changed.  A reduction of 12 months to reflect those mitigating factors is appropriate.   That would lead to a notional sentence of six years, three months’ imprisonment.

[78]     From that you are entitled to a credit for the guilty plea you have entered to the present charges.  Again I do not accept counsel’s submission that you should be entitled to a full discount, given the late plea.  Given the acknowledgement of guilt on your behalf and the timing of it, something in the region of 10 to 15 per cent on the balance of the relevant additional sentence here would be appropriate.   That would equate to something in the region of three months.  The end result is that if all these matters had been before the Court for sentence the appropriate end sentence would have been six years’ imprisonment.  I test that result again by reference to Mr Urwin’s end sentence of two years’ imprisonment.  An additional two years at this stage would be too harsh in the present case, but anything less than a further 12 months I consider would be inadequate to reflect your culpability in the offending and the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.

[79]     Mr Tallentire please stand.   On each of the present charges that you have pleaded guilty to, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. That sentence is cumulative on the sentence you are currently serving.  That’s all,

you may stand down.

Venning J

ADDENDUM

[80]     Mr Ryan is bailed to the home detention address until Monday 18 March

2013 and is to observe a 7.00 pm to 7.00 am curfew at that address until that date.

[81]     Once the reparation payments are received by the Registrar of this Court the

Registrar is authorised to disburse them directly to the receiver of CMF.

Venning J