Reid v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-404-362

[2019] NZHC 212

BETWEEN
BRUCE HARVEY REID

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 12 February 2019

Counsel:

M P Hislop and L R Toepfer for Appellant R M A McCoubrey for Crown

Judgment:

20 February 2019

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 February 2019 at 3.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office, Auckland

REID v R [2019] NZHC 212 [20 February 2019]

[1] On 9 November 2018, the appellant, Bruce Reid, was sentenced in the Auckland District Court to two years and five months’ imprisonment, having pleaded guilty to the following 15 charges:1

(a)six counts of theft by a person in a special relationship;2

(b)three counts of false accounting;3 and

(c)six counts of criminal breach of trust.4

[2] He appeals the sentence on the grounds it was manifestly excessive as insufficient credit was given for reparation and personal circumstances.

Factual background

[3] In November 2015, Mr Reid, a lawyer in sole practice, was subject to a limited review as part of the inspection programme by the New Zealand Law Society. That review uncovered some concerning transactions in relation to trusts handled by Mr Reid, leading to a more thorough investigation which identified six clients from whom he had misappropriated funds.

[4] Mr Reid was the solicitor for the trustees of a trust. In July 2014, trust property was sold and Mr Reid was required to discharge the mortgage over the property. On 15 July 2014, Mr Reid transferred $41,920 from the trust account to his own account without authority to do so. On 21 July 2014, Mr Reid transferred $5,920 back to the trust account and paid the trust the balance in the trust account. The result was that Mr Reid obtained $36,000 from the trust without authorisation. To conceal this misappropriation, Mr Reid issued a statement to the trustees which showed the loan repayment at a higher figure than was in fact paid.

[5] Mr Reid was also the solicitor for an estate. The estate provided a life interest to the partner of the deceased in a property in Meadowbank. The partner suffered a

1      R v Reid [2018] NZDC 23970.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 220; maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 260(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 229; maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.

stroke shortly after the deceased died, forcing him into hospital care. In July 2014, the property was sold for $776,000 and around half of the proceeds ($373,663) was placed into Mr Reid’s trust account for the credit of the estate. Between 28 July 2014 and 20 March 2015,5 the defendant made 12 transfers to his general account totalling
$43,400 without authority to do so. On 16 May 2015, Mr Reid made a further advance of $3,700 to his general account, again without authority. Between 5…

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 Reid v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Reid v The Queen [2019] NZHC 212
Case: [2019] NZHC 212
Decision Date: 20 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bruce Reid, appealed his sentence of two years and five months’ imprisonment, imposed for 15 charges of theft, false accounting, and criminal breach of trust. Reid claimed the sentence was manifestly excessive, arguing insufficient credit was given for reparation and personal circumstances. The court considered whether the sentence was within the available range and if it was intrinsically erroneous. The court found the District Court appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and that the sentence was within the appropriate range. The court found that the District Court properly considered Reid's health, age, remorse, and reparation payments. The court also found that the sentence reduction for a guilty plea was not in error. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders