R v Bublitz

[2017] NZHC 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-002293 [2017] NZHC 331

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL NEVILLE BUBLITZ BRUCE ALEXANDER MCKAY RICHARD TIMOTHY BLACKWOOD LANCE DAVID MORRISON

Hearing:	28 February - 3 March 2017
Appearances:	D Johnstone, B Finn and D Robinson for the Crown R Reed, H Ford and Y Wang for Mr Bublitz G Bradford and S Withers for Mr McKay S Kilian, D Dufty and F Hawkins for Mr Blackwood Mr Morrison in person J Dixon as Amicus Curiae
Judgment:	3 March 2017

RESULT JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J [As to s 147 applications]

Solicitors / Counsel / Parties:

Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Ms R Reed, Barrister, Auckland, for Mr Bublitz

Mr G Bradford, Barrister, Auckland, for Mr McKay

Mr S Kilian, Kilian & Associates, Solicitors, Auckland, for Mr Blackwood

Mr L Morrison, Palmerston North

Mr J Dixon, Barrister, Auckland, Amicus Curiae

R v BUBLITZ [2017] NZHC 331 [3 March 2017]

[1]      Counsel, thank you for your detailed submissions over the period of four days or so.  I have reached decisions on each of the applications, which I will announce now with my reasons to follow, hopefully by the end of next week.

[2]      Dealing first with Mr Bublitz’s applications, on Charges 1 and 36, I grant the defence  application  and  discharge  Mr  Bublitz  on  Charge  1  and  Mr  Bublitz, Mr McKay and Mr Blackwood on Charge 36.  I have reached the view that in both cases the payment of funds on behalf of a borrower does not amount to a transaction for the purposes of the Viaduct Trust Deed or the Crown Deed of Guarantee.

[3]      On Charge 22, I decline the defence application.  I am of the view that there is some evidence on the two issues raised in the application, which if I was to accept as accurate, would establish the elements of the offence to which they relate.

[4]      On Charges 29 and 49, I grant the defence applications only to the extent of the particulars relating to the lending and credit policy.  I am of the view that such qualitative statements do not engage the criminal law in the context of this case.

[5]      The  application  is,  however,  declined  with  regard  to  the  related  party transactions particulars.  Here I accept that the Crown did not intend to limit itself to alleged  breaches  of  NZ  IAS  24  and  the  charges  will  proceed  on  the  basis  of particulars relating to both NZ IAS 24 and the Crown Deed of Guarantee.  No formal application to amend the particulars is required.

[6]      In  declining  the  application  with  regard  to  the  related  party transactions particulars, I am of the view that the prospectuses continue to speak after publication and that the Securities Regulations 2009 did not limit what was required to be inserted into the prospectuses.

[7]      Moving then to Mr Blackwood’s applications, on Charges 26, 30, 36, 45 and

47, I decline the defence application.  I am of the view that there is some evidence on the issues of knowledge and intent, which, if I was to accept as accurate, would establish the elements of the offence to which they relate.  I am also of the view that

there is some evidence of assistance in terms of s 66(1) in respect of Charges 30, 45 and 47.  Therefore the applications by Mr Blackwood are accordingly declined.

……………………………….

Woolford J