R v Scutts - [2015] NZHC 1108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-9588 [2015] NZHC 1108

THE QUEEN

v

PETER JOHN SCUTTS

Hearing: 4 - 11 May 2015

Appearances:

R Reed and R R Parlane for Crown
J R Billington QC and A J Steel for Defendant

Judgment:

21 May 2015

REASONS FOR VERDICTS OF M PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice M Peters on 21 May 2015 at 2 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date: ...................................

Counsel: J R Billington QC, Auckland
R Reed, Auckland
A J Steel, Auckland

Copy for: Serious Fraud Office, Auckland

R v SCUTTS [2015] NZHC 1108 [21 May 2015]

Introduction

[1] Peter John Scutts faces:

(a) one charge of receiving a secret reward for procuring a contract, being an offence under s 8(1) Secret Commissions Act 1910 (“s 8(1)” and “Secret Commissions Act”); and

(b)16 charges of dishonest use of a document, being offences under s 228(b) Crimes Act 1961 (“s 228(b)” and “Crimes Act”).

[2] Mr Scutts was charged by the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) on 20 August

2013.1 The Crown assumed responsibility for the prosecution of all charges on

3 June 2014.

[3] The matter proceeded as a Judge alone trial and I reserved my decision.

[4] I find Mr Scutts guilty of the offences with which he is charged and these are my reasons.2

[5] These reasons comprise:

(a) a summary of the Crown’s case;

(b)the elements of each offence which the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt before Mr Scutts may be found guilty of the offences with which he is charged;

(c) a summary of the relevant evidence, including findings of fact where necessary;

(d) my verdicts.

1 Section 12 Secret Commissions Act requires that the Attorney-General give leave to prosecute for an offence under the Act. Leave was given on 19 August 2013.
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 106(2).

Summary of Crown case

[6] The Crown’s case under s 8(1) is that Mr Scutts advised New Zealand Wine Company Limited (“NZWC”) to enter into a contract to supply wine to Liquor Marketing Group Limited (“LMG”), and agreed to receive consideration, that is a payment, from LMG as a reward for the giving of that advice, namely AUD$1 per case of wine supplied by NZWC to LMG.3

[7] Although I find Mr Scutts guilty of this offence, the Crown’s description of the reward is inaccurate. The reward was the payment of AUD$1 per case of wine sold by LMG to its retail customers (“$1 per case”).

[8] The contract between NZWC and LMG was entered into on or about 2 March

2011 and its terms are recorded in an undated letter from Mr Robert White of NZWC to Mr Douglas Finlay of LMG sent on or about 29 March 2011 (“NZWC/LMG contract”).4

[9] The Crown’s case under s 228(b) is that, subsequent to the NZWC/LMG contract, Mr Scutts submitted 16 invoices to LMG to obtain the $1 per case. The Crown has…

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] NZHC 1108
Case: [2015] NZHC 1108
Decision Date: 21 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scutts involves Peter John Scutts, who was charged with one count of receiving a secret reward for procuring a contract under s 8(1) of the Secret Commissions Act 1910 and 16 counts of dishonest use of a document under s 228(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Crown's case against Scutts hinged on his alleged receipt of a reward from Liquor Marketing Group Limited (LMG) for advising New Zealand Wine Company Limited (NZWC) to enter into a contract to supply wine to LMG. Additionally, the Crown alleged that Scutts dishonestly used documents to obtain the reward. The case was heard by Justice M Peters, who ultimately found Scutts guilty on all counts.

The court had to determine whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Scutts advised NZWC to enter into the contract with LMG and agreed to receive a reward from LMG for doing so, without NZWC's knowledge or consent. The court also had to determine if the Crown proved that Scutts dishonestly used documents to obtain the reward. Justice M Peters concluded that the Crown had proved the existence of the agreement between LMG and Scutts for payment of the reward under s 8(1) of the Secret Commissions Act. The court found that Scutts submitted the invoices dishonestly and without a claim of right, satisfying the requirements for the charges under s 228(b) of the Crimes Act.

In reaching the verdict, Justice M Peters considered the evidence presented by the Crown and the Defence, as well as the relevant statutory provisions and rules of law. The court found the facts to be as follows: Scutts was engaged by NZWC as a consultant to provide a range of services, and his role included assisting NZWC in increasing its sales in the Australian market. Scutts met with LMG employees several times to discuss the supply of wine, and a contract was eventually entered into between NZWC and LMG. Scutts submitted invoices to LMG for a fee of $1 per case of wine sold by LMG to its retail customers, which LMG paid. The court found that Scutts lied to the Serious Fraud Office and NZWC's Board, and that he submitted the invoices dishonestly and without a claim of right.

In conclusion, Justice M Peters found Scutts guilty on all counts, and the final orders of the court would be made accordingly.

Orders