Legal Research
Cases
R v Scutts

R v Scutts

Case [2015] NZCA 599 10 December 2015

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA426/2015
[2015] NZCA 599

BETWEEN	PETER JOHN SCUTTS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	19 October 2015
Court:	Harrison, Heath and Collins JJ
Counsel:	J R Billington QC and A J Steel for Appellant R S Reed and R R Parlane for Respondent
Judgment:	10 December 2015 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

The appellant, Peter Scutts, was found guilty following a judge-alone trial before Peters J in the High Court at Auckland of one charge of agreeing to receive a secret reward for procuring a contract in breach of s 8(1) of the Secret Commissions Act 1910.[1] He was also found guilty of 16 charges of dishonestly using a document under s 228(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. He was convicted and sentenced to home detention.[2]
[1]R v Scutts [2015] NZHC 1108.
[2]R v Scutts [2015] NZHC 1617.
Mr Scutts appeals against his conviction on all charges but not against sentence. His primary ground, as it was recast in argument by Mr Billington QC, is that Peters J failed to give any or adequate reasons for her verdict, in particular for rejecting the evidence of the two defence witnesses. In Mr Billington’s submission, the Judge failed to apply the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in finding Mr Scutts guilty of the charges. It was common ground between Mr Billington and Ms Reed for the Crown that the result of Mr Scutts’ appeal against conviction on all charges stands or falls on our determination of the Secret Commissions Act charge (the s 8(1) charge).

Statutory provisions

In order to give context to Mr Scutts’ appeal, it is necessary to start by setting out s 8 of the Secret Commissions Act, which materially provides:
8 Receiving secret reward for procuring contracts an offence
(1)Every person is guilty of an offence who advises any person to enter into a contract with a third person and receives or agrees to receive from that third person, without the knowledge and consent of the person so advised, any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for the giving of that advice or the procuring of that contract, unless the person giving that advice himself acts as the agent of the third person in entering into the contract, or is to the knowledge of the person so advised the agent of that third person.
(2)For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to advise another person to enter into a contract if he makes to that other person any statement or suggestion with intent to induce him to enter into the contract.
Adopting the language of the section, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) charged that Mr Scutts in his capacity as agent for the New Zealand Wine Company (NZWC):
… between 2 February 2011 and 13 October 2011 at Auckland ……

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 Scutts

Details

AGLC: R v Scutts [2015] NZCA 599
Case: [2015] NZCA 599
Decision Date: 10 December 2015 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter John Scutts, the appellant, was convicted in the High Court at Auckland of one charge of agreeing to receive a secret reward for procuring a contract, in breach of s 8(1) of the Secret Commissions Act 1910, and 16 charges of dishonestly using a document under s 228(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The primary ground of his appeal, as it was recast in argument, was that the trial judge failed to give any or adequate reasons for her verdict, in particular for rejecting the evidence of two defence witnesses. Scutts' counsel argued that the trial judge failed to apply the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in finding Scutts guilty of the charges. The appeal hinged on the trial judge's reasons for finding the Crown had proved the existence of the agreement necessary to establish the s 8(1) charge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons, while not as comprehensive or explicit as they might have been, were sufficient to disclose a logical connection between the evidence, the issues, and her verdicts. The Court was satisfied that the trial judge did not reverse or misapply the Crown's burden of proof and that her verdicts were reached according to the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also found that the trial judge's verdicts on the dishonest use charges could not be impeached.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders