R v Sullivan - [2014] NZHC 2500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI 2011-076-1948 [2014] NZHC 2500

THE QUEEN

v

EDWARD ORAL SULLIVAN, ROBERT ALEXANDER WHITE and LACHIE JOHN McLEOD

Hearing:
12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31 March 2014

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 28, 29, 30 April 2014
1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 May 2014
3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 June
2014
21, 23, 24, 28, 30 July 2014
5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 August 2014

Counsel:

C R Carruthers QC, N F Flanagan, P W Gardyne and
E Rutherford for Crown
P H B Hall QC, M A Corlett and K H Cook for Mr Sullivan
R B Squire QC for Mr White
J H M Eaton QC for Mr McLeod

Verdicts:

14 October 2014

VERDICTS AND SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR VERDICTS OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Serious Fraud Office, PO Box 7124, Wellesley Street, Auckland
Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Auckland
Gresson Dorman & Co, PO Box 244, Timaru
Rhodes & Co, PO Box 13444, Armagh, Christchurch
Duncan Cotterill, PO Box 5, Christchurch
Counsel:
C R Carruthers QC, PO Box 305, Wellington P H B Hall QC, PO Box 3750, Christchurch R B Squire QC, PO Box 10157, Wellington
J H M Eaton QC, PO Box 13868, Armagh, Christchurch
M A Corlett, PO Box 4338, Shortland Street, Auckland

R v SULLIVAN [2014] NZHC 2500 [14 October 2014]

Verdicts

[1] Mr Sullivan, Mr White and Mr McLeod, I will now give verdicts on each charge in the indictment. I will then ask you to be seated. I will then explain, in summary form, why I have entered the verdicts on each charge.

[2] Following some brief observations about trial rulings on which I am lifting suppression orders today, I will deal with consequential issues arising out of my verdicts.

[3] I give the following verdicts:

(a) Count 1 – false statement by promoter Mr Sullivan Not Guilty Mr White Not Guilty

(b) Count 2 – false statement by promoter

Mr Sullivan Guilty

(c) Count 3 – false statement as promoter

Mr Sullivan Guilty

(d) Count 4 – false statement as promoter

Mr Sullivan Guilty

Mr White Not Guilty

(e) Count 5 – false statement as promoter

Mr Sullivan Guilty

(f) Count 6 – theft by person in a special relationship

Mr Sullivan Not Guilty

(g) Count 7 – theft by a person in a special relationship

Mr Sullivan Not Guilty Mr White Not Guilty Mr McLeod Not Guilty

(h) Count 8 – theft by a person in a special relationship

Mr McLeod Not Guilty

(i) Count 9 – obtaining by deception

Mr Sullivan Guilty

(j) Count 10 – obtaining by deception

Mr Sullivan Not Guilty Mr White Not Guilty Mr McLeod Not Guilty

(k) Count 11 – false accounting

Mr McLeod Not…

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 Sullivan

Details

AGLC: R v Sullivan [2014] NZHC 2500
Case: [2014] NZHC 2500
Decision Date: 14 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Sullivan and others involved charges against Edward Oral Sullivan, Robert Alexander White, and Lachie John McLeod for various offences related to their roles in South Canterbury Finance Ltd. The trial, presided over by Justice Heath, lasted for several months with extensive evidence presented over multiple court dates. The charges against the defendants included making false statements in prospectuses, theft by a person in a special relationship, and obtaining by deception. The Crown argued that the defendants' actions contributed to the financial collapse of South Canterbury, while the defence contended that the collapse was due to broader market conditions and inadequate governance rather than deliberate dishonesty.

Justice Heath found Sullivan guilty on several counts, including making false statements in prospectuses and obtaining by deception. Specifically, Sullivan was found guilty for not disclosing certain related-party transactions that were material to potential investors. He was acquitted on other charges such as theft in a special relationship, where the court found he might have honestly believed the transactions were permissible. White and McLeod were acquitted on all charges, with the court finding insufficient evidence to establish their criminal liability. Justice Heath also addressed various procedural issues that arose during the trial, including the application of the co-conspirators’ rule and the suppression of certain trial judgments. The final verdicts and reasons for the verdicts were detailed in a comprehensive judgment, which was distributed to the parties and made publicly available. Sullivan was convicted on several counts and faced sentencing, while White and McLeod were discharged from all charges.

Orders