R v Wiliams - [2021] NZHC 3301

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE CLIENTS OF RURAL LIVESTOCK LIMITED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2019-012-1900

[2021] NZHC 3301

THE QUEEN

v

JOHN FRANCIS WILLIAMS

Hearing: 3 December 2021

Appearances:

R P Bates for the Crown S J Shamy for Defendant

Judgment:

3 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] Mr Williams, you appear for sentence today on four charges to which you have pleaded guilty, following a sentence indication I gave you on the 12th of October 2021.

[2]These charges are:

(a)first, a representative charge of obtaining by deception;1

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 240(1)(a) and (2)(a).

R v WILLIAMS [2021] NZHC 3301 [3 December 2021]

(b)secondly, a charge of causing loss by deception;2

(c)thirdly, a representative charge of false accounting with intent to deceive;3 and

(d)fourthly, representative charge of false accounting with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage.4

[3] It is necessary here to repeat some aspects of my sentence indication received by you on the 12th of October given the public nature of this sentencing today, but I have also considered updated submissions provided by the Crown and also by your counsel, Mr Shamy. In addition, I have considered reports provided to this Court.

Factual Circumstances of the offending

[4]I need to turn briefly to the factual circumstances of your offending.

[5] Between 2008 and 2016, Mr Williams, you worked as a contracted stock agent for Rural Livestock Limited, who I will refer to in these sentencing remarks as RLL. RLL is the largest privately owned stock and station company in the South Island.

[6] The charges arise from concerns raised by RLL and a subsequent Serious Fraud Office investigation.

[7] Mr Williams, your job involved facilitating transactions for clients looking to buy, sell, lease or graze livestock and to arrange these transactions with farmers. You would then submit a sale note to the RLL office where other employees would generate an invoice and credit note to the relevant parties. Where a party was a client of RLL their account would be credited or debited. You, Mr Williams, also had your own clearing account with RLL, through which you arranged personally a whole range of transactions too.

2      Section 240(1)(d) and (2)(a).
3      Section 260(a).
4      Section 260(a).

[8] In mid-2015 RLL launched an investigation after it received numerous disputes over invoices in transactions facilitated by you. It found you had submitted false sales notes, and at times recorded yourself or your associated company as the vendor of cattle, which you did not purchase, leaving the true owners of the cattle out of pocket. In some cases, the recorded vendors did not own the livestock, or the recorded purchasers did not receive livestock fort which they were invoiced.

[9] The offending began in May 2014. In one such event early on, you facilitated fictitious leases, sales and other transactions, initially relating to nearly 300 cattle between farms and farmers…

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 Wiliams

Details

AGLC: R v Wiliams [2021] NZHC 3301
Case: [2021] NZHC 3301
Decision Date: 3 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v John Francis Williams involved the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to four charges of fraud while working as a contracted stock agent for Rural Livestock Limited (RLL). The charges included obtaining by deception, causing loss by deception, and false accounting with intent to deceive or obtain a pecuniary advantage. The offending, which occurred between 2014 and 2016, resulted in significant financial loss to RLL and its clients. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding the defendant accountable, denouncing the offending, and promoting a sense of responsibility. The court also assessed mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, willingness to pay reparation, and remorse demonstrated through restorative justice processes. The court imposed a sentence of 12 months electronically monitored home detention, with an order for immediate reparation of $250,000 and an additional $300,000 to be paid over three years. The court also made an order prohibiting the publication of names or identifying particulars of RLL clients.

Orders