2009-06-26.l.hapu to court of appeal - amicus-curiae with docs in syntax ~001876

8/7/2019 2009-06-26.L.hapu to Court of Appeal - AMICUS-CURIAE With Docs in Syntax ~001876

1/32

IT1tLe ~4, D,-9, -r.. -$, ~l,~j: Copyelai.n1 ~20tl2,

-1 FOR THE CITlZEN'S-DAMAGE:S OF 'rHE FICTIONAL-SYNTAX-OATH OF OFFICEARE WITH THESE FICTIONAL-MODIlTICATION-SYNTAX-CLAIMS OF THE ENGLISII-LANGUAGE-SYNTAX WrI'8 AN OATH-'WORD-SYNTAX-MEANING-FRAUD OF TI-iE VQID-SENTENCE-STROCTORE-SYNTAX WITH THESE WORD-SIMULATION-SYNTAX, WORD-PRESUMPTION-SYNTAX, WORD-MEANING-ASStlMPT10N-SYNTAX, PER,JURY, LIE ANDJURISDICTIONAL-ILLOSION-SYNTAX BY THESE HISTORICAL-AILING-OATHS WITHTHESE aIDDEN-.AGEN-DAS OF AN ATLING-WORD-SYNTAX-OSAGE BY THE UNITED-STATES - E'lOSTAL-UN ION - Dl-STRICT-CO[JRT DE' THE NEW- ZEA.LAND-TKRRI TORY--2 FOR THESE FACTOAL-CONFESSION-E'RAtillS OF THE POSTAL-ONION iS-ONITEDSTATRS-_D.ISTRICT-COURT ARE WrTH THE UNITED-STATES AS AN lITLING~WORD-GUI SE: "THE (ADVIRB) CONSTITUTION (ADJE;C'I'IVE) OF r PRONOUN) THE(ADVERB)UNITED ( IUJ.lEC'f lVE/ SL~TES(PR()NOUN} OF (A1JV/i1Rl:J) NEW (ADJECTPlE) ZEALAND/PRONOUN) - UNDERTHE UNITED-STATES-POSTAL-UNION-GuLSE .....3 FOR THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNTVERSAL-POSTAL-UN;rON-SWITZERLAND ANDUNITED-STATES-POSTAL-UNION OF THE NEW-ZEALNm ARE WITH THE VASSAL-PORTING-CLAIM OF THESE COURTHOOSE~VESSELS WITH AN AILING-COMMUNICATTQI\!BY THE BILLS OF THE LADI.NG WITH AN AILING-GOISE-COMMONICA.TION-PAPER-VE:SSEL-LANGUAGE AND WITH. AN AILING-POSTAL-TREATY BY THE UNITED STATESOF NEW-ZEALAND-CORPORATION WITH AN A.IL.ING-COMMUNICATION-MAIL-GUISE BYTHE NOM-DE-GUEFRE-NAMES WITH AN AILTNG-DEAD-CITIZE'N-GUISE AS THEVESSEL WITH THE VOID--CLO$URE BY THE UNITED STATES OF' TEE ..NEW-ZEALANO-POSTAL-aNION'S-GUISE: OATH OF OFFICE,-4 FOR THE UNIVERSAI,-POSTAL-ONION-ILLUSIONS OF THE LANGUAGE-SYNTAX-GUISE ARE WITH ~BE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES-POSTAL-UNION WITHTHE FRAUDULENT-SYNTAX: DE' T 'RE FICTIONA1-SYNTAX-COMMUNICATION-DRYOOCK-VASSALS WITH THE PERSON'S-CONTRAC'I'ING-ITALIC-OATH-SYNTAX AS A DR'iDOCK-TREATY BY THESE COURT-FIDOCIARY-GUISE .....5 FOR THE VOID-CLOSURES OF 'I 'HE COMMmnCATION-SYNTAX-MODIE'LCATIONS AREWITE THE WRONG~WOlm-SYNTAX-DErINITIONS AND: WRONG-WDRD-SYNTAX-TERMS OFTHE VOIOING-ONE-IDEA-SE:NTENCE-STRUCTURING-SYNTAX WITH AN aRIGINAL-CONTRACT-CLOSURE-SYNTAX BY THE ENGLTSE-LANGOAGE wlTH THE ONITED-STATES-CORPORATION THROUGH THE NOW-T.IME-DATE.~6 FOR THESE CORRECTIONS OF AN AILING-COMMUNICATION-FRAUD ARE WITH THENOW-T.l"ME-CLAIM OF THE CORRECT-SEN'I'ENGE:~STB.OCTURE-CQMMUNICATmN-SYNTAX-LANGUAGE-CONTRACT WITH THE PEOI"LE OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE "BY TIlEPEOPLE'S-CLAIMS WITH THIS VOID-JURISDICl'IONAL-OATR AND COURT-FIDOCIARY-GUISE ..7 FOR THE STOPPING AND FOR THE WORD-TERM-CQRRECTING OF TH.ECOMMDNlCAT ION -8 YNTAX-WRONGS ARE WITH THIS CLAIMANT-crTI ZEN' S-CLAIM OFAN AUTHORITY WITH THE TI TLE-- 4 2 : IT. -5 . -c , -8 . - -1.9 86 FOR ..THE KNOWLEDGEOF THE FAC'l'S BY 'l'HE CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMmnCA'I'ION-SYNTAX-LANGUAGE-CLAIMANT OF THE NEW-ZEALAND.-8 FOR THE CORREC'I' ON DE' TEiESE WRONGS :IS WITH THE CLAIM OF THECLAIMANT OR WITH THE VACATING OF AN AILING-GUISE WITH THIS UNITED-STATES- POSTAL-mnON-DI -STRIC'Ji-COORT OF THE NEW-ZEALAND-TERRI'l'ORY.

COPlteLIUM/COPYRIGHT.


2/32

"---- .:AU 0 RAPH Sf! 1 ;PYCI .A lMI OPYR lGHT

COUR'l'-

#FOR THE NUMBERING-CODE-TERMS OF 'raE WORD-SYNTAX-OPEAATIONS. WWW.DWMLC.COME'OR THE NUMBERING-OPERAT10N OF A SE'Jl..CE-CONSOl..IDATlON ME 1HTR THE CTJAIM BY r T H E CLAIMANT.-NtlMBERING-"KElYS AND ~ TERMS-0 =CONJUNCTION = llNllY-EACTS = l'lrID/OR-1 = ADVERB ,_ l>l, 034, 4-1>2, 4-j>34, 11-1 11, > , -, - FOR THE orRECTION3 01 ' THffi WORD-CmmEc.TTON-SYNTAXDPV = DANGLlNG-PARTICI~AL-VERB, VOIU-S8NT8NCE-ENDING-SYN~BOXING = OMIT = VOID-CONTENT/CDNTEXT (WORLD-STYLES-SYNTAX-HANUAL)ITALIC-SYN1'AX, =VOti)/OM IT (" SYNTAX-STYLES-MFlNU]l.l,)

"" = QOOTATION-MARl


3/32

I f . f]__, '"L \ 3. 4 -rN THE COURT 0 ' APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA3112009

T2009) NZC A 130

THE QUE.EN

v

SHANE CHARLES WENZ 1 L

4 -Hearing: ~.C. 18 March 20094Court: \ I , e . O'Regan, Robertson and Arnold JJ4 -Counsel: V , C . J N Bioleni for AppellantN Till QC. C J Curran and A Butler for Crown4 -

Judgment: \l,t'8 'April2009 at U.30 prn

4 \ l 2..JUDCMENT OF THE COURT'r I I'll '"2-- I z, ~ 'f . 1 ~ ~ " ' Z . . , "L- j> .Leave to appealis grant~a, but the ~peal is dismissi!9.

: V O I O - C O N T I N U A N C E I( V ,C " , ): 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E .No 4 \' '2.~SONS OF THE COURT~vo'O- -,l.

(Given by Robertson J)

R V WENZEL CA A3 11 2009 [ 8 Ap ril 2009]

. :SYNI8X~COMMUNICA]ON:WOBD-KEY:1 =ADVERS2=VERB3 = ADJECTIVE4 = P R O N O U Na = FASTTIME-TENSE9 = FUTURETIMET iNSEa = CONJUNCTIONDPV=DANGLlNGpARIICIPLE.VESij


4/32

! . . . l o < ;1 ' l1t rod uct lon-\\ L . t J 'O - I\j. \ I JO 'L 1, . 0 \J" .[ I ] T he ~ell an Ii M r W enzel, ~ lI ld aneth er ("X VZ") w hose name h as been

sup pressed , are await ing t rial on an in dic tm en t whic h has 36 CO~lLS:4\ !. 3 " 6 Using a document dishon estly - 17 against MJ' W en zel on ly

~.L.L o t 'L \.,J'l.1'''''' l 1 "1 4 - U ing a documen t to defraud ~ 2 again st M r Wenzel on ly_. .

\\.L . . ' t r \"'t.. ~,',]..~ 2 Obtain ing by m cep tLon - 16 ~gall1S1 both 'Aicusect-- ,_-! ....--. -\),(,. C f I : 1 \ 31 f t -

Failing to p roduce d cumen ts - I again st M r Wenzel on ly."J j L . . I r JII' 7 , . . I 'L \ 'L! "'L \ -z, 't I " S 3[2J A t issue on this appeal i an order m ade on 9 January 2009 by Di .trict Cour t"> '1-Jud ge W ad e under s 361D of the Crime Ac t 1 96 1 that there should be a Judge aloneItrial.\l.l, .

t - z . . \ 2- '1 3 : '" 4 - I[3 ] T hat ection, which c arn e in t forc e on 25 D ecember lO ~g, en ables the~ '2-, 11l ",,:3 4- r 3 '1 . '" . . p rosecution to ap p ly for a Judge alon e trial, an ability which hitherto had been- -available only to an accused,~i:[4J .~ ,I ? - I 3 1 . s , 1 '1 0 9 - . '+ 11 , d ~1 3 1 .:tftbAS it LS a n ew egislat ive prov, ion, we lave ealt con temporaneous y WI.\"""0'2. (I \ '2-,OP~r+ - \ . I11"Z.- .t W ~leave to ~eal and th e merits, Thls .IS the f irst t ime s 361 D has been considered byth jl s C5t lI t~P \l i nc 'e the p rovision c am e Into f or ce , t he H igh Court ha s cOl1sidere;one,ap p lic at ion un der s 3 61 D (R I' F CR J 2007 -092-1 1 32 H AK 20 February 2009)and on e under it s c om pa nio n p ro visio n, s 361E which provides fo r judge alone trialsin Cases of juror in tim id ation (R v Pritchard R l 2 0 0H - 02 0- 00 2JH7 He NAP23 February 2009), In R 1 1 F, Rodney l- lansen.T no ted th e Law Comm is sio n 'sa ses sm en t that s 361 0 w uld hay particular ap plic ation to c ases involving f raud orcomplex evidenc ,\} .L .Ij. ~. 11\101( . \lC~ 01"0'1.[5J In Pritchard, Dobson J observed that there 1 5 no guidan c e in 'the Crime Ac ton how s 361 E is in ten ded to be balan c ed again st 5 1 24(e) ~f t l 1 N l w ZeJ 'and S n J b fRiJ'ts A~ 1990 ("NZBORA"), which . provide tha: ~YvrYQ!lJLchar=edR. \:lth_m~:SYNTAX-CQMMUNICATlQ~FlQ~tY-KEY.

; V 0 I 0 - C O N T IN U A N e E . ~ : C ~ ~ ~ R B( V . C . ) . 3 : cAD JECT IVE= 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X - 4= PRONOUNR U L E " 8 = PAST-T IM E TENSE9= FUTURE-TIME-TiNSE0= CONJUNCT IONDPV =QANGLING-PABTICIPLE-YEBB


5/32

offence the penally for which is o r in clud e three or more m on ths ' irn pri onment ha sthe right to elect trial b y j ur y, The Judge noted that. by virtue of s 4 or ZBORAs 361 must prevail over 5 24(e) orNZBORA if they conflict, bt u said:,\c.\I. If I.[5] In tuitively. however. the derogation from fun dam en tal righLs suc h asthose in s 24 of the New Zealand Bill of R ights Ac t sit uld on ly pCCUI when

th e Court I s w e ll s at is fi ed that uch der galion is warran ted. In th e contex tof New Zealand society and the balanced administration of the cr imi nal law,i t is to be hoped that ju tification'tor orders under this section will b rare.

'l\ (.IJ. - 4-Background

[6]'\l, c .1 I.j. 0 l ~ "Z-i" \. "'"Mr Wenzel and XYZ were arrested in October 2006. A deposi t ions hearing- - -took place over eleven days during July an d August 2007 and both men werecommitted for trial\ 1 . i. I.:!. t - I ' " 4 I J < . I O 3 S c . 4 -[7 ] T he Solic itor-G en eral's indicrm .01 was p resem ed on 9 O ctober 2007 .- --~.ll

[8 J OI . . L 0 4 I : i . '!.. ~. I ,: t X d N l o l f f i t , .n 2 November 2008, at a pre-trial hearing, the enous Frau 0' Ice-("SFO") a s p ro se cu to r informed the Cour t that if would be app lying for n Judgealone trial under a new tatutory provision (s 361D) whlch would corne into Iorce on25 December 2008. n 27 Novem ber 2008 th S FO filed an ap plic atio n f or tr ia l byJu dg e alo ne together with a supporting affidavit.

\ ! L. O pv, . 1. 4 . I - z . . r ul " 2 . I ~ c , . . I '2.:.:-- 'tI ,I[9] Judge Wade, who has ~ays had th e carnage of the file, call5' lor. : 5 . I + 4 - t- d~I'f.j'I:1 .. l , A 1submissions from the partres by 24 December 2008 and alia ated a hearing f'ol' ther J < > 3 - -~lication o~ 9 Jamtary 2009. The SFO riled further material in support of itsapplication on 7 January 2009.

~.L, - of"I ;. t .. I l....?",,.o 3 g t , . , 3 tp '" 0 'B[JO] At th e conclusion of that hearmg, h'e ordereo trial B y Judge aloneand T1 1 1~1. . t 'l.. \ '! > tlo 40' 3 f t....- -4- -that tH e trial would go ~ead as ,c heduL~ o n 9 February 2009, H I? indicated thatreasons would follow, XYZ has been content throughout to ahid the decision of th eCourt.\}.t. L '\I .~ - .13 , . ~ , . . . . -"?,/ '14 , I . 1 ' 1 ' " ~ S I 'Z . I z,[! I] Mr 81 0 letti (for Mr Wcnze 1 ) Immediatel y adv i s ed lb a t there wou ld be an

r J . . o ~ 1- . \ r v o " Z . 9 f l L l 7_ -;-j'..,.. 1:-appeal against t he Q r de r. ThL was lodged 011 I Janliary. There was a resp use by- - - ,- ;SYNTAX-COMMUNlQATION ..WOBP-KEY:: V 0 I 0 - C O N T I N U A N e E , 1 = ADVERB

( V , C ; ) . : 2 = VERB: Z - S P A C I N G - S Y 'N T A X - 3 = ADJECTIVER U L E 4 = PRONOUN, 8 = PAST-TIME-TENSE9 = FUTURE-TIME-TiNSE0= CONJUNCTIOND PV = DANGL lNGPART\CIPLE.VEBB


6/32

the SFO au 27 January 2009. basic ally arguin g that leave to ap peal sho uld not begranted.\ } , c ... I "'2- I 1 . 4..,. tJ a I 8 " ' '2.. 2.,:z.[12] This Court, by Miiinte of 28 January 2009, ~vise.f1 there w ou ld be a hearingI JA If. 0 tl .. I r . Ia to leave and re men s tm u taneou ly, At that stage reasons Lor JU C gment werenot available an d w ithout them the ap peal Gould not be advan ced. T he Minute notedthat ifthe p rosecutor w ished to bold its 9 february 2009 trial date, the part ies couldll;yee to then : bein g a jury trial but iu the absence o r consent , a postponement o r th etrial was inevitable as this Court needed to consider issues arising Linder th e newlegislative provision.\ ] , c . ., l '1- :) '1 t,. t . ; ~ ~ 4 . \ J "3 j ,I[1 3 ) A Minute of Judge Wade dined 30 January 2009 ~cords that Mr Werize] w as4 - I N O 3, t (..'1 J FO :1. I . t . r l ."" '''~2.. .\ 2 .by then 2QPose] 't o the tnal ~ceed.ing with a JUry Witho ut the ~e ru bein g heard.

~ "'1 - t. . 'l..-. \.i~ 1. t , . .That s tance JS diff ic ult to understand. However, even tually all p arties agreed that~there had to be an adjournmen t p endin g the ap p eal The t rial w as resc hed uled torMonday 1 7 August 2009. R eason s for judgmen t were delivered on 4 February 2009.\j,l...

\ - z _ 1 ~.'1.,The grounds 01 appeal-~.l,..[14] "l- \ 'L':1The submissions on behalf of Mr Wenzel ' were orn ewhat d iffuse, butinvol ved challenges Touted ill q uesticns II f:

\ I, l. . J .) . un swc tl.on ;

\J~~.~ 4 ~all1 ,ess;\\. , -z, \ - z . . G The effec t of NZBO I{A : and" . ( . . .' J i" I 1- A wrongful exerc i "C o f d is c re ti on ,

\ 1 . .The IegislatiunV L'+ 4. \ 3:J ~t:l1 ~ a I .3[15] Sec t ion 4 of the Crim es Amendmen t l e t (No 2) 2008 in serted the new

4. 0 If \ ~ ' " f . l) 1 1 0 1 " " 2 . Lt--5S 361D and.36 IE into the Crimes Act 1961 and, as relevant, provides:o J c. ;SYN'@-COMrvtONICATION-WO BD -KEY:1 =ADVERB2=VERB3 = = ADJECTIVE4= PRONOUN8 = PAST-TIME-TENSE9 _ FUTURE-TIME - riN SE0:.: CONJUNCTION

; V O I D - C O N T I N U A N C E ,( V . C . ): 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E .


7/32

4

; V D I O - C O N T I N U A N C E .( V . C . ): 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E ,

o tJ f 4 . SNew sec tion s 36 LD and 361E inserted-\I. , I I 1T he follow ing. c tion s are in serted after ec t ion 361 C:\I.t.. -- -361D .fudge may order trial without jury in certaln cases thatare. likely to "be l on g an d c om plexJ.l.. \ 3 0 J 1 U ~\Jo'O - -!J(1) This section 4Q!ies only , O ' . ~ p e;S on (O le ac cused person)w ho is c ommit ted for trial for an offen ce that is nol-

\ 1 . a) I ~OZ- t ~ _ I :3 ,.. .1an ofIe.nt;le for whi 1 1 the rnaxtmum penally IS~ ..-- '3 ,.:;J l'~ 0,. f 14unp rtson rueru tor Ire or unpn soumen t or . yearsor more; r1",.'- I.-l. C Ian ~Tfen ce of attemptjng or con sp iring to commit orof being a r a r t Y L o th~ com mission of, or of being anaccessory after the fac t to , an [ fe n c e r ef er red L a inp ar ag ra p h (a ),\ll..

(2) The Judge may, on a writ ten ap plic ation for the purposemade by the p rosecutor to the Judge. and served on the ac cusedp erso n before the ac cu sed J)erso n is given in c harge to the j ur y, o rd erthat the accused p erson be tried for the offence before the Judgewithout a jury.

" . 4 -(3 ) However, th e lodge m ay m ake an order un der subsec tion (2)on ly if the p rosecution and the accused person have been given anop portun ity to be beard in relation L O th e a pp lic atio n, an d f ollowin gsuchhearing, the Judge issatisfied-\).l.. I "d 3 tJil ~u ~ u


8/32

(e) .any ulher mailers the Judge considers relevan t.~ ~. .(5 ) If tJe ~sel person is one of? o~ more persons to b e t rie dtogether, all of them must be tried before a Judge with a jury un lessan order under subsec tion (2) for al l of them to be tried b y a Ju dgewi thout a j ury is appl le d f or and made." c . . (6) This sec tion does not limit sec tion 36 LB o r J6 J C or 36,1 E ..

(6 ) This s ec tio n ap p lies in resp ec t o f an accused person only if-V,~,(a ) th e ac c us ed p ers on i s c ommht ed fo r t r ial on or afterthe dale on whic h this sec tio n c om es in lo forc e; or\t. (. .(b ) th e ac cused p erso n is committed f or t ria l before th e

date on wh ich thrsseet ic n c om es into forc e and thetrial has n ot c ommen ted before t hat d at e."V .C,.. . '_ ,\. jl. , .. . , - : J[!6] These new p rovrsicn s carn e in to force on 2,: ,)December 2008, SIX months' . i f . . \ , " [ , . \ .3 ' 1w ~Ij(l\r,)-l- rJ".! . 3from the date thai S 4 or th e Crifhes Amen ill1 1en t A ct (N o 2) 2008 IE gelv;1 LR oyal, ' to ~\lOU)~Assen t (s 2). .

\j.t,4-, J urlsdtctiou~I(.... . p~;J . "3 . \,to 1. It . I .. l3 I . 7 . . . . \ "l..~[J7] Mr Bicletti argues tbat , as s 361D of the Crimes Act was not In f or ce u n ti llL . - \ r J { I 1. 5..~l.f . Ii-. d J .25 D ec em ber 2008, ~he ~!icali{)n files on 2 7 November 200~ an d the sup porn ng

documentation filed prior to the n ew p rovision s coming in to Force were, in lawnullities.

~.C~ . '\ ..... j.. f Jo l, . .:I I r . . . 0ThIS IS an l1nSlJstamab.le~ment. Mr Wen zel an d thec o-ac cu sed have beenliS]

aw aitin g trial fo r over tw o years. T here Was a t en -we ek t ime slot available betweent ile p rovision c om in g in to forc e an d th e trial d ate i n February 2009. Puttin gto on eside the date on wh ich the SFO ' ap plic ation w as filed, c learly there w as jurisdic tionto mak e the o rd er.

\J.t..;3 ~ 0[19] Mr Wenzel an d XYZ have been commit ted for trial fo r of fences f or w hic hthe maximum 'penalty was seven years. There were no charges involving am axim um p enalty of life im p riso nm en t o f 14 years or lon ger. whic h w ould havep rec lu de d t he a pp lic at io n o f t he se ctio n.: V O I D - C O N T I N U A N C E ,

( V , C . ): 2 - S P A C I N G ~ S Y N T A X R U L E ,

. :YNTAX-COMMUNICAl1QN-WORO-KEY:1 = ADVERB2=:VERB3 = ADJECTIVE4=PAONOUN8:: EAST-TIME~IENSe9 =EUTUBe~T IME-TiNSE0=OONJUNCTIONDPV;:l DANGL. ING~PABIICIPLE-YERe


9/32

o","v~.. '2-- \ 'Z . I '2,., it 1 s (.t ( JI l ' > ' 2 . . . . . . : - 0[20J Written app lic a ion . fQ r"trial by Judge .alone was made 'By th e prosecutor and( 1 1 '2- \. " " 2 : " " rJ z;T,jj\J3Ir' -. ~ --:'- _ -serv~ n each of the ~u. ed (a required by 3610(2,). The accused had been

committed for trial before the dale on which th e new section came into force, but thenew trial had not commenced (s 4(6)(b Crimes Amendmen t Act (No 2) 2008). The.parties were given an opportun ity to be heard in relation to tile ap plic ation (asrequired by s 361D(3)) . The eclion.was in force at the time that Judge Wade madehis order. 1 0 other words, all the statutory requiremen ts for its being engagedexisted.

[21 ] '< \ . ' 1 I l I + . , N0 -a, ~As to die filing of the ~cat ion, all that occurred was the s imple expedientf having it filed early. This allowed every on e in volved to consider their posi t ions

an d as sis ted 1 1 1 having the ap p lic at io n ad ju dic at ed upon within the short ti rneframeavailable. Early warning in respect of the app lic ation was to everyone '5 advantage.There was nothing un law ful in what occurred,

[22] ks ~t t ra~pjr_lg because of an exercise of appe-al rights, the best laid p lan o rmice and men did not come to fruiti n and the trial slot had L be vacated. Therewa however, jurisdiction when Judge Wade made the order 011 9 January 2009.,The submission that commencing the proce s early was a nullity is without merit.

j:p Iv , r((\L.1 c . e- OM 1,,0V 01 j) \ N ~ :_( 3 : It ., \. "l.. - /.;. \ ~ t\'_[23J Although not . . thl 'em~5i [6 by c oun sel, we have conslde~ New ZealandEmployers Federation v National Union of' Public Employ;;;; [_002] 2 NZLR 54,w here this Court c on sidered the cope of s II of the In terp retation Ac t 1 999. Sec tionJ 1 provides for the exerc ise of powers onferred by enactment before the en ac tm en ten ters in to force in c ertain c irc um lances. The NZEF c ase in volved the registrationof a un ion under the 'mployment Relation Ac t 2000 t efore the Ac t was in forc e.T he C ourt considered whether the registration had been "necessary or desirable tobring, or in c onnec tion w ith bringing" the enac tm en t in to operation in terms ofs 11(2). Holding that 1 1 did not authorise .registrarion of a un ion before the Actcame in to force because registration in volved the ubstantive provisions of the Ac t,R ichardson P for the majority said that s II ap plied to tep s required to fac ilitatep roc edural n ot substantive, c hangeover from the old to the new legislation .

: V 0 I 0 - C O N T I N U A N e E l ;S;~"?vE~~MMUNICATlQN-WOBD-KEY:( V , C , ) 2 = VERB~ Z - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X - 3 = ADJECTIVER U L E , 4= PRONOUN

B =pAST- TIME.TENSE9 = EUTl JRE-T IME ..T iNSE0;: : CONJUNCTIONDPV = DANGUNG-eARTICIPLE-VERB


10/32

[24] I'J. 4 - \ "L1' \"t.- t : 7 ; J ~~111e COLl!t in NZEF was c liyic is_Q ,w ith K eith an d Blanchard J . I c!!gsenting.They considered that s 11 (unlike its predecessor.: 12 of the Acts lnterpretation Act1908) distinguishes between the coming into force of legislation and the bringing ofit in to op eration . K eith J s aid th at :

j .e .. . . .

[68] The change, c on sisten tly with th e readinggiven to th e old provisionan d its eq uivalen ts , c larif ies the p urp o e of help in g give fu ller substan tiveef fec t to th e legislation by en ablin g the makin g o f necessary n r desirableprovision which is effective right from the time the leglslatiou comes intoforce ... The provision is not to be read narrowl\ J Q . " . , _ , t..)0' ~~'::> ""T . 'r '2-1 3- " 3 '3 '" + l' "'. g[25] Even on tlie m ajority view ill the NZEF case, nothing ;JawfuJ ~urr~ i n

this c ase. The s 361 0 appl i cat ion was procedural , an d its gran t by Judge W ade wasadministrative directed to the efficient disposal of an inevitable issue. The ordercannot, in 'that sense, be said to fall int the "substantive" zone envisaged by theNZEF majority. The new section was 10 effect before the trial commenced andJudge Wade's order was a p rocedural means of expediting what could otherwisehave arisen in a foreshortened timeframe during the vacat ion .\J,t.

t J < l ~Unfalrness--'~,(._.

[26] M:' B ' 1"3, "'b' . t , . ! " G . \ drJ+ 1,. h 1. . 1 " 2 . _ L t J . . l' z, I,"r 10 ern su nuts tnat a' a eposiuon earmg 1." part of t le continuum 0cr iminal t r~cedure for an y i t i"dictable ~foanatiOtl, it is fun dam en tally un fair topermit a change in the system to occur in the course of a particular trial,'~,t. ~~

. . 4 . \ " ' 2 . . I "t 4 0 ' "L i < J " ' . - - z . _ ~ : " "[27] That lSI however preci ely what U1C words of the tarute provide for (s4(6)(b) Crimes Amendmen t Act No 2) 2 0 0 s t It is not f r a cow-l in- ; e a b s e n c e ofambiguity or un c ertain ty, to in trude its view as to a polic y matter which has beenclearly articulated by Parliament.~,c..[28] M r Bioletti's c onc ern in this regard also n eeds to be viewed in light of w hatdid happen at the dep osit ion hearing. In his reasons for decision Judge Wadedescribed it thus:~ . c . ,

: V O I O - C O N T I N U A N C E .1 ( V . c . ): Z - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E .

[1 IJ '" Mr Wenzel, at th e depositions bearing, refused to consent to lillybr ief o f evid en c e at all bein g the subjec t of "hand-up". Partly as a result , th ed ep c s it io n s b ea ri ng ran fo r a total of I I days, during whicb i t was onlypossible fo r 1 t of th e 41 prosecution witn esses. to give eviden c e. I hadbefore me affidavit evidence from M S D.!lJAA a Serious Frrud Office: Y N ~QQMMUNICAT IQN .WORP-KEY ;

1 = ADVERB2=VERB3 =ADJECTIVE4= PRO NO UN8=PAST-TIME-TENSE9 = FUTURE T IME TENSE0= CONJUNCT ION


11/32

investigator, that even p ur ely f ormal e vi de n ce ( su c h lH ! thai by bank o ff ic e rsm erely p ro duc in g d oeu rnentaryex h lb its) could nul bit ag reed , .. ,

~.L. . "L " 2 . . . . . . ~[29i1 \ f'I' ~l I b 1\ 'l~' 4 - -h' ~l btl' iblic ati. J An ac cuseoc an ..eha ve ..ikeU11S if Le y WI.S r, . u t nere 1s n o 0 lJgation at a. ,-

dep osition s hearin g to c all aJ1 evidence which may be led at trial. TIle pu rpose ofdep osition s is to d eterm in e w heth er there is a pr ima. facie c ase. What is required isevidence adequate to establish a p rim a fac ie c ase.an d there is n o in frin gemen t of adefendant's legal right just because s ome, r at he r th an all, of t he av aila ble ev id en c e issufficient for the "purpose.\l,e .. . I - z J , , . , , ~[30] There was no unfairness." (. .4NZBORA,~,L[3 1 J Mr B io le tt i made an im passio ned p lea abo ut the c on seq uen ces 0 f t aking awayan ac cused p erson '5 right to trial by jury. 1 - 1 e m ade p artic ular referen ce to statem en tsof the impor tance of the right as recogn ised in o ther jurisdictions (R v Sherratt[1991] t SCR ?09 (Supreme Court of Canada) and S )I Coetzee ( 1997) 3 SA 527(Co n s ti tu t ion a 1 Court o f South Afric a)). A similar philosophy permeates th eju risp ru den ce in o ur c ou ntry.

\ \ , ( ' . 5 .i t - . . f'Qf I ., "'" -z,3 .I G.. \.! ~ .\ ..3 . ~ ,[32] Mr Biolet t i resp on sIbly ~cep t~ that there wa-s n o obvIOUS ambiguity In O lelan~age'1 of s 361 D whic h would enable the Court , un der s 6 of the NZBORA. tointerpret the sec tio n c on sisten tly with 5 24(e). Counsel s ti ll submit ted that theapproach of the Supreme Court in Hansen ]I R [2007] NZSC 7 probably req uired ass S an d 6 assessment .\\.(,.'4-\1'r..L.P"~ c rroH"...,.,IQ .')~-;t 1 'J ! I ; l ~ 0 It .... .[3 3 ] A Hansen assessm en t un der 55 4 , 5 and 6 of NZBORA w ill be a rather non -. --product ive exercise where there is a dear a nd u namb ig uo us legislative direction,But , as is required by Hansen , we briefly c on sider whether 5361 D is justified in

: V O I D - C O N T 1 N U A N C E ,( V , C , ): Z - S P A C 1 N G . S Y N T A X -R U L E ,

teTlJ1S of's 5 of NZBO RA .~.,(..., 4 .. rJ..t '1 . . - \ . 'l ".. ~ 1.'2- \. .z. I'~1[34 ] Sec tion 5 requires that th e nghts 1I l NZBOM may be s ub jec t on ly to such

'" \ ""Z - I-}.II 3..., 3. 8 ' L . \2.:::.-'" 0. ..hm lts as may tie demonslrably justif ied ili a free an d democ ratic soc iety. The"':SYNT8X-CQMMUN!CAT[Q~-WORDKEY:1 = ADVERB2=VERB3 = AD JECT iV E.4= PRONOUNB = = P8SFTlME-I!;NSE9 = = FUTUBElIME-liNSEo =GONJUN CTIONDPV = DANGLING-PARl"lG.IPlE-VERB


12/32

template fur this "demonstrable just i f ica t ion ' was articulated by the CanadianS up rem e C ou rt in R v Oakes [1986] 1 CR 103 .

~.C' ~ . ' " ~ . . ' ' 3 ! ~'j1"t 0 W e L 1 , . . . . \"l'LI[35] \ W e con sider that the limit p lac e_Qby s 361 D and E on the right to trial by. "V b'" ' : t o n r i e l II . ' . ' 11 ' 'a J hJUry can e jusrr e orma Y InasS case tbe rown WI provide mateo' to tt- .qOUl1 to establish th at th e relevant limitation 0[1 th e r ight is "d em on strab ly ju st if ied ' .In the present case however, s 361D was enacted after the Law Commission hadcarried out a research project in to jurie , an d it and s 3 61 were among the changesthat the Comm i ion recommended: see New Zealan d Law Com mission Juries inCriminal Trials (NZLC R69 200 I, ch 3). For the reasons given by the Commiss ion ,we cons ide r that the limit placed by those suctions on th e right to trial by jury can bejustified. The scope of s 3610 is by its terms confined in application and requires ajudicial assessment of the circumstances that the prosecution contends bring the casewithin the section. Section 361D i dire ted at promoting Iair trial. outcomes, whichcould be compromised if a jury were presented with-highly complex evidence that itcould not reasonably be expected to understand sa as to he ab.le (0 assess andevaluate,~.t...

[36] We are atisfied. that 3610 is justified in terms of s 5 and we do not sec bowthere COLLld sensibly be any In te rp r et at io n u nd er 5 6 of the words used by Parl iamentwhich would lessen the impact of the balancing exercise.\I. . roo.Ilj 1 2. I L~[37] At the hearing before us, it emerged that toe crux of the appellant's case wasthat, as under s 24(e) of NZBORA trial by jury i an absolute right in cases where thepenalty is Imprisonment of three months or more, the availability to th e right ha anincreasing intensity according to the len gth. of the effec tive sen ten ce likely to beimposed upon convic t ion . That i the longer th e probable effec tive term ofimprisonment, the more important the right to trial by j ur y. We consider thi thesisbelow.\I, .

\ I'l- ' Z . . - I "LT he exerc ise of dlseretlon, -\1(,[38] The fa ctual circumstances ' g _ i ving ri: e to the charges were encapsulated byJudge Wade as follows: ;SYNrAX-CQMMUNICATION-WOBD-KEY :1 = ADVERB

2 c : : V E R B3 =ADJECTIVE4= PRONOUN8 = PASFT IME - TENSE9 = FUTURE-TIME-riNSE0 = CONJUNCTIONDPV = DANGLING-PARTICIPLE-VERB

: V O I D - C O N T I N U A N C E .( V , C . )~ 2 - S P A C J N S - S Y N T A X -R U L E I '


13/32

[7J The offenc es in volve alleged comp lex mortgage frauds, withmult ip l e t ra n sa c ti on s an d layerswithin t ran sa ct io ns , s pr ea d over some Igseparate p ro p er tie s, w it h what h as b ee n d es cr ib ed asa s op his tic ate d m od uso peran ditelatin g to the alleg ed o ffen din g. It ls th e p ro se cu tio n c as e th at, inm an y in stan ces, p rop erties w ere bein g purchased by en ti ti es c o n tr ol led byMr Wen zel an d then sold by t ha t e n ti ty ['0 a no the r p er so n who w orked forMr Wen zel, o rw as o therw ise c lo sely associated with him. These purchasersw ere then a: ,~ked by M r W enzel to sign documen ts an d en ter agreements ,including [Dan ap plic at io ns, w hic h they k new little about an d, in many cases,where loaas were arranged t he re we re same day payments of borrowed fundsback to the origin al vendor. The volume of eviden c e is likely to be large,with some 41 prosecn ti on witnesses, Six of those witnesses' briefs ofeviden c e exceed 20 p ages and tw o 0.[ them ex ceed 50 p ages. The 41prosecution witn esses are made up of eight borrowers OT p urc ha se rs , f ou rreal estate agen ts, six emp loyees of businesses run by Mr Wen zel. fivem ortgage brokers, I I le nd ers ' re pr es en ta tiv es , a P olle e document examiner,three lawyers, One legal executive an d two Serious Fraud O ffic ein vest iga t o rs .\l.l.[39] Mr Biolerti did not engage 'in detail w ith the particular issues which are

req uired to be taken into accoun t by the Judge un der s 3 61 D(3) an d (4 )..~,1.. ,

[40] L. .\2. b 'However.he submitted:\j. !.,...

[14J An ac tual p rison sen ten ce o r seven years w as a Likely c on sequen ceof con vic tion , this is an insunn ouutabie and o ve rw he lm in g f ac to r against th eremoval of thenght to Jury trial in this case. Thisfactor is like Jabba theHut t s ittin g all the end of the seesaw . Som ethin gextraord in ary would berequired to justify the removal of the right 10 jurytrial in a c ase involvingthis heavy p oren tiallo ss o f liberty an d this c a se i s n o t e xt ra or din a ry .[15] Ai Ih e en d o r the day, iti s tl case of a lleged f al se p r et en c es , in th eo ld .p arlan ce, Q 'Sto w hether d ep osits said to be p aid w ere not p a id a n din c omes aid to be ea rn ed W'aSOOt earn ed. A t the end o fa t ria l, d is till ed to i ts e ss en c ewith the humbug strip ped away, the trial Judge having determined questionsof law which is what in v ar ia bly o c cu rs , this case would be rairl.y straightforward fo r ajury to determine,

\j,LI .: o\dO\~'-... \. 1 : ~5.,."", .[4 t] He su b seq ii en t ty j ef er red to "t he g rea te r the p oten tial loss o f lib er ty . the- - 8hi h lhe l 1 f .. al '. ~dv.d l"rligner t e reve _0 const i tu tional protecno D require; ' an . no t~:~,c . .

[1 7 J ... the greater n eed for publi c v al id at io n of verdicts throu gh the ju rysystem an d p ublic p artic ip ation ln the c rim inal just ic e system , the greaterDeed JO t protectiem aga in s t a rb it ra ry state p ow er, the greater need fn r theunconst rained and constitutionalright of a jury to brin g in a verd ic t, thegreater n eed far the impartiality of the fac t de ten n in e r, the p ublicen do rsem en t o f dec isio ns, the dem oc rat ic right of p eop le to serve a s jurors,th e larger number of p eop le on a jury, an d tb e req uirem en t o f p rac tic alunauimity,

: V O I O - C O N T I N U A N C E ,( V , C ; ): 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E ,

, ;SYNTAX=QOMMUNICAIION-W06P_KEY:1 ==ADVEFIB .2 = VERB:3 = ADJECTIVE4= PRONOUN8 = = PAST-TIME-TENSEe = = fUTUR-E-TIME-IENSE0==CONJUNCTION


14/32

l '1- l lA o '1 . 8[42] In conclusion he submitted:\ . J .L . - -[1 8] The greater the p c ten t ial loss of liberty the more lr np o rt an t t he sethings are an d the fac t that the p artic ular c ase may be high ly suited fo rpractical adrninistrat ive purposes to a judge alo ne trial c an no t outweigh th eparamountcy of Ute r ight to jury trial where len gthy p rison term s are at stake.' J . e . .

[43] Mr Till QC rejected this appr ach and undertook an orthodox analysis of the,issues required to be considered under the tatutory test. He referred to the numberof counts and the technical nature 'of many 0 r them. As to the issue. likely 10 be.involved be argued that this is a cas-e of "complex mortgage fraud with multiplet ran sac t ion s and layers wi thin transac [ ions spread over I H p rop erti es wi th asop his tic ated m odus op eran di to the offen din g".

~. l J . \'i'" 'l.~, . .[44] Couhsel n t e . g that , al the time Judge Wade under t ok th i assessment. heba d already he~d a s 347 ap p li arion in respect of XYZ and had ac c ess to tile noteso f evidence from the very lengthy deposit ions hearing 0 was in a good posit ion toe valu at e t he b alan c e r eq uir ed .

~.L. .' + I ~ ~ 3 ~ ,....1, ~ q"-t I ' l _ . . ",0 1 7[45] Turning to the ~ues spec.i1kal1y~qdrrt:d t o be taken rn to ~colln l under1361D(4), th e respondent's submissions noted: ---.

\I. .The briefs of six of the p rosecution w itnesses exc eed 20 page. and twoexceed 50 pages. T he 41 p rosecution witnesses are made up o r th efollow ing: ', 7 borrowers/purchasers 4 real estate agen ts 6 em ployees of busin ess run by Mr Wenzel

5 m ortg ag e b ro ke rsI J . lender representativesL p olic e d oc um en t e xamin er3 law yers an d I legal exec utive2 SFO officers

[46] \ fJl "'L.. & _I I ~ I . 3. 4 . .Coun eJ L!J)derlmsrJ_ the fac t that , at the dep osition s hearin g, al l witnesserwere required to give oral evidence.\ : V O I O - C o N T I N U A N C E ,( V . C , ): 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U l E ,

T f 1 C ! trial i . set down for ten weeks.;SYNTAX-COMMUNICATION-WORD-KEY:1 " "ADVERB2=VERB3 = ADJECTIVE4= PRONOUN8= PAST -T IME -TENSE9;: : FUTURE-TIME-T iNSE0; :: CONJUNCTION


15/32

[4 7 ] Judge Wade referred to lan guagep roblems for p rosp ec tive juro rs in theMantikau District COWl. Wo are told that this is ue was not raised by either counsel.an d i t is not a matter of relevance in . the evaluative exerc ise w e have under taken ,~.(, v

\ f . t < ! '> > 4 - I '2.~[48J The ~pondelJt subm it : that tb e size, sc op e and comp lexity of the c asedemon strate a likelihood tha; poten t ia] jurors would not be able to p erform theirduties ef fec t ively. T his underm in es both the p rivate and public value of a jury right,and.makes this case a p ro p er c an did ate for a judge-alone trial under s 361D.tL.[49J J u d i e w i a e concTod~d :

\ l , c . .[31] ... 1 am satisfied that the Serious Fraud Offl,cc is entirely correct whenthey submit that it is difficult to envisage a trial more suited t o t he e xe rc is eof my statu tory disc ret ion than a om plex alleged frau d trial suc h as this.

\ J . .. . \ z,[50] We agree.

\I,t.[5 I] There is nothing which suggests that the Judge 21erclsedhis discretion on awrong principle took in to ac coun t irrelevan t ccnsideratious or failed to weigh thestatutory requirem en t or other m atters r elev an t t o the exerc ise of that di cret ion , W eare not persuaded that the language i sue was s er io us ly i nf lu en ti al ,~.L[52] \ '2 . . . I ' ' 2 , . . - I ~.. S f> lP4 ~We reject the sliding scale approach advocated.- -- It add nothing to, nordetracts anything from, our conclusion at [35], above, that s 361 D is an unambiguousand justified dero gatinn from s 24(e). That bcing the c ase, s 361 D mu st be read .i n it sterms. T here is n o p rovision in that sec t ion for the ap p lic at ion of a higher s trin gen cystandard if the penalty is likely to be great. The evaluative criteria for the Judge donot go beyond tho e provided for in the section.~.(..[53] The right to trial by jury affirm ed in NZBO RA L an absolute. lts ap p lic ationand availability arise from the p oten tial for more than three mon th s' im p ris onm en t.H ow ever Parliam en t 11a5 decided tpat in some c lasses of c a e, that righ t is to bebalan c ed again st o ther iden tif ied fac 0 . The p robable effec tive c n ten c e is n ot on eof those an d we f in d JlO basis for in troduc in g that addition al mandatoryc on sideration by judicial fiat.

: V O I D - C O N T I N U A N C E ,( V , C . ) .: 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E .

;SYNTAX.COMMUNICATION.WQRO.KEY:1-ADVEAB2 =VEAB3 = ADJECTIVE4= PRONOUN8= PASFTIME TE ;NSE9 = FUTURETJME.TiNSE0==CONJUNCTIOND PV = DANGLlNG.PARTICIPLE-YEBB


16/32

[54 J The case bas all the hallmark ident if ied by Parliam en t a being uffic ien t tooutweigh the advantages which a re o the rw i se obtained by tr ial by jury.J .c . 4 , ..1 2 . _ , z, i C t ! " Z - " ~ 8[55] Leave to appeal is granted, b u r the appeal is dismissed,- ~ -

: V O I O - C O N T I N U A N C E I( V C , ): 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E .

q .Solicitors:Crown Law Office, WellingtonS er io us F ra ud O f fi ce . Auckland

;SYNTAX-COMMUNrCADON_WORD_KEY'1 = A D V E R .B . .2,=VERB3 c :: ADJECTIVE4>= PRONOUNe fAST-WtE- TENSee ;;rEUIUBe: r IME- TENSr;0 = = C O N J U N C T I O NOP V = = QANGLING-PABTICIPLE_VERB


17/32


18/32

f4 \ . 3 4 -IN T,n DISTRICT COURTAT l't1ANtlK;\lO

C lU 1006 ..0 92 -0 1 4382

~SYNTAX-CQMMUNICATlONWQBO.KEY;1 = ADVERB2 = V E iRB3 = AD JECTIV E ~4=PAONOUNa = P A S , . . TIME-TENSE9 - FUTURE -T IME -TENSE0 : CONJUNCTIONDPV ~ OmGL lNG-PARIIC IPLE-VERB rIt ;pe~s: N TID QC ~d A G B\jltlerr'O~th e SenoU$ FTa1.~dOffice- J Bioil: tti fo r M T Wllm t:c! : V 0 I [ } - C O N T IN U A N e E IG 06tlic:b for Mt "D" ( V , C . )

; Z - S P l C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E ,!

'Min1t 'e~ ~.C. 10 January 20094 - J ~MINVTE OB JUDGE ROY W,J,E

oo:::,I

" L ! . l l ' l' hi8 Cour t C"dnnuthqu: lhematrer pnar tu 9 ' Peb~ 2DOO ,'bat therearc ~d a~ ptPl1ar~uCllS wby Un 3IPcllkir ISl)chU t;bis, whu h faaea witlla Sln~ amtl:idmt':nt~shotild e l l ~titl~ to ~erei.sc his Appeal rightFi, eventithis in eans a tnAl poStponement."(10) Id~t fhat th quc-stiQtl of loave'~J the ll1mtR of the c~hauldb e htwd together. TbJ: .R~gi~ai Sb()l~ldtilloen re the ~ pwmble datt aftthe filt' is rt::otivt:d by Ihis C l 1 I . l l ' t Ind r~ son s fo r judgment oecorM ,8t l l1abf~

, ~~.


19/32

ItitI,1

z'~YNTAX-CQMMLJNICATION"WORO-KEY:1 " ,A DVERB2~VERa,3 ~ A DJEC TIV E4 " , P R O N O U N8 '" PAST T IME TENSE9 ::;FUTURE- T IME -TENSEo Co CONJUNCTIONOPV:= DANGLlNGPARTICIPLE-VERB

hUe ilUOW11lg fur tun GJ"~l to be pro\ iQtd b y e!.c b s'idc:, There will bean o ra ! hcarmg ,"Cl 1j )c~ 1.111I\'olvesa new fegistati t: prOvWCl1,~e rruurer !ihould behear~by th e ,P~Dt Co'un",? t ( J 3 i ; . 4 - & . J _ I " Z - !',S.[2 J Al ;~ f im tel~han ,e oon f~rence, c onvme_g at 9.1~ am today, Mr BlolettJ

' -I . , \ 7-\" 7 . . \ ,J, :3 . NO 3~ -", 3 tJ- ~ ,10bk t h cpqmt tbatihere 'II ,uld peJunsdlctiQllal p:robletl1ti to th~ ttia] .e;gce&dlng as a ; 3 _ _ ' ,'3 4- ' '+ , I t . J '- \..J 2.. 1 ' / . ; 1 1 - 1 0 ~ .. ,L. ' 2 . . .Jury utal on 9 lebruary as tnl. ' maltCr was ncv ~,r~etl.Y l lW: -o~ ' tl ieo t111 'O f A'PPealo . 1 7_3 fl I h ,l-- "\ ~ z ('?'3 T-o -&0 ':l, J Ii-.I '2..., ot"van d It "1 5 ~1 'O 'P,n ateJht tb-e ~eal to D.d heard and. ~nmn !SJ on ita ments .Furt :hJmol'O Mr B io le tt i s ug ge st ed . tlla1 it ill..behove t h e Serious Fraud O ffic e.hA .vin aqued fur a Iudgcalotle td;.a) no t(l)Je;autdrom tlleirpa,mtioo a n d . n _ o , seek [ 1 ' ; \c on tin ue w ith the l t l 1Y trial,

~ < " ' 11 3 , . 3~3 , 4 - : . 1 .8 z..I,.z I ~ \ 3(3) The Senous Frij'U4 Offic .e 's pOsifiGl'lWltS that th~ were not p:l any WClI)'~ 3. ~ r ~e. ~ j . " . ~.l 'L I :;3 4 . . t 1 3 .3~Ili..u:g f..rom thC'1f ongma,l ' posWo.n . ThUI1S .not h c ase Q f 'ti\e Smo,U$ F ii ud Offic'e

. . a ~ . , _ 4 . f ~ . . . . .'tt b' ~ (ld ' 2 . . . J ?- P~L ,. d .,uC'[~g m a t a tair Ll.J.~ Y jury COli nOt taIm place, r~er .11was 11ctsmtn.alJ.Outhat a l\J'dp alane tri 1 would ,be t h e : mOT-e,pproptlate to .rum . H ow ever, it wasIllknw~dged: that th fITe ~ p Pt en tt 8.1 ju risd ic tio na l p ro blem s: u nless the \~asconsen t C i l t 1 all sid es to th e t r i . . u C O l 1 t 1 n 1 . l i n S S a J W ' Y trial l O l l 5 1 Feb!'uar,y. The : Serious'Fr.aud Offiee were c ru::e~ abeut the del" ,> ,ifthe' tnal c4t1no:t;pT(Joeed as s chedu led1 l 1 1 d , m.t point ~t ~l~one conferenoe was adjourned tlntll 2.0' pmse thaI bothdefence counsel c Q Q l q c~ instnlQtions.\,UI ".\J ", ~ I :s s 8 4 -" '. , .l4 J Wh~ llic matter~~ at 2 .00 pm" MiBUJlettl contfrme:d.he bad reeetvedp ~it iv e in slt 'llC tio ns ~ M r Wenzel that his client w ould n ot seek to re ly u po n an ydela, oc :cas ioned 0)' a resc heduling of the trial. H owever, Mt G otlieb's c lien t d id:no t consent to t~ d.y'inevitably ocasionetJ b the trial betn ICGchcdulcd .\ . J , c . . 4 I ", '7 , 4 - , 1 . . - , ~ , J . ,'t ,I N f J _ 3. ' ... ,[5] In thQs,e ~~tanc t::& ,tb~= ,_ UflBllllIllW c h a t the ,.propn:necourse ofv a ') .. I:' 1.1) 2. \ .J ~ "~ ,. , i J . a ~ .~O[l w as to ~~el the ma l ~ an g _e nf s for 9 FtlmiAry and. , happily. a subSt iMe

It : ri A 1 date can be ~d \\rithoUl too S t t b s t ru J , t W l ad~lay.V L' ~I ~" 3 W 4 : ,l , .1 ,3 It. 4 \ 'Z.. S . 0, N0 Y .lJ 1 d1e:re:fQre d . l r i : c t e a thliL the: trial date o r 9 F~brt1nrybe vcatc i! and, UlslCad.:Ii f/. ~,1... 1- 1 -. , ~ f : R ' ! _ , "1 i,- Idirect~> lhat dl:e trial will comm_ce Oe M C ! n & , > r '~ ; . r7 Aug'tlS.i ne:lt Wit, sn e~tim:ate1- \.L, "o f 10,We&kS, b a & C d ('ip U " e ttSSUUlptlo!! maLmo trial w iH thtm be a JUlY trial. A s . .: V O I D - C O N T I N U A N C E ,

(V,C.) : 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E .


20/32

ir 'J"QI'lf '1;1:')(:;i :lA.D.6:11C;1

!,

L

-. . . . ._ _

.. . - . .

:SYNTAX_COMMUNICATION-WORD-KEY:i'"ADVERB2 = VERB3 = : ADJECTIVE4",PRONOUN8 '"PAST-TIME-TENSE9 = FUTURE-TIME-TENSE0= CONJUNCTIONDPV = DANGL.INCl-PARTlCIPLE-VERB

: V D I D ~ C O N T I N U A N C E I( V , C " ): 2 -S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R u L E .


21/32

c ar 2006-092-01+-382

v- : r .3 ( J _

I S8ANE CIlAllLES 'WENZEl.: r V I P . ~ ~ 0 N T I N U A N e E ;A~ :SYNTAXCOMMuNICATION-WORP-KEY:: 2 " S P A C / ' ~,J~rv, 1 = ADVERBR U L E . N G ~ S Y N T A X _ UD" ~~~~~~CT IVE

4 = P RO NOUNa = PASFTIME-TENSEg .= FUTURE-TIMFTiNSEo = CONJ UNCTIONPPV =DANGLlNG-PAATlCIPLE-VEBB4 .

4H:wing: ". L. Jarma:t:y 20(194 p e a r t r n c e s : A C Bu.tler fOll ~ Senous Fraud. Office- J B io let ti f or l \ 1 r W cmzelItDII inPetsbtl

J lD 4. I \"1 - - . . . ~~.1lS for ~s.ien~ 4 FebNary 2Q 09. . t l l ) -'t __ I ~;i L ~. '.. L J . . . .~PASONSfORD.EClSIONOFJJ7~GER 'WADEOU Ap, t iCAt iODPUOOlaJ l t to 5 361] ) 0 1 th ~Crane _ 4 " l f t 1961 .

--If , I f - ' . . I '2 I t J o '3, 'r \ !I. 3 " e ~ " . .'[lJ o n ~ Jm\l.m'Y 2009 , I b5rd ae ap pIic auO h bl' the Senom Fnmd O~~e that

~ forthc~ tri!l J r JUi : tw~ ~e1 lS;dbe by: way of Judga atune tn dQQru 'dancewith legislation TUI eame mil) f 'o ze e a s .r ec en tly a s l~st Cbr i$ tr rI! l.SD ay. O lv tn t ha tthe deoisio.n is o t some sip15CfmCf! lOthe part ies, ib Uun it a:ff~ts the .bcousedl1\long-~~libed tighl Q ~al by jury . a n d is', probably, rite first involvmg this:

,


22/32

it,tltIIt

I

,,,rI,"

;YNIAX-CQMMUNICATION-WORP-KFC1 = ADVESB2: : :VEAB3 = ADJECTIVE4; ;PRONOUN6 =PAST- l iME-TENSE9 - FUTURE-TIME-IENSE0' = CONJUNCTIOND PV = DANGl ING-PARTlCIPLE-VERB

leBlSia~ i't plainly cieslSl;1ted some reilectiOn an d r u e p,reparnrion of a c ::ltefu lresen'ed judFent b~!O;Basiy olJTlolusiOA was ' reaohed.\J (..1 f J t : I It - : > ~;I ~ '2- \ "- '- ~o I[2JI Unhappily. ciromnstanees p r e v e n w 3 1 l t 1 y foUOWUlg that course o f a tUOl1 a n d 1

q ;_ ' : ~ '1-' . ~ pO '= : - . l .I . > , . ~ . I un,_ f)J1V , 1had. till make my d~UllOfi 'gDmematt :l1 uponrhe conclUSion OT he ~ent. with)10 1.- I l ""~U9m to rOnO\~' lat!r. Those' oircumstances \.'~rc th;a1 thet:riat IS currentlyscb!tdu,l~ to commcn" b4are J U I ) ' f~ a n estiol,atefl 10 w:ee~ commenclns Boon as 9 ' February 2(}" 9. AlrCadYl DVM 1S0 ju.r)' summonses have been issued byth~ Conrt Pl~, itWl:)llld hardl~ be ClJpropri ate Im' tb:e decision to bl made oui~upon the first day of a mat,. with. 8 jUry panel of th.atsize waiting and my otherc :~tmcmts p:r~V:CJ1tsdme 1 i ' o m h.f:rr ing fhepplioation u n y latc tr.h;an 9 January, Atthe tim .e of h ~ 1 W i n g t he app ,l ic a ti c ll t X was aware. that no reserve time had be~.allocated tome tm f : ) t ~ 9 Febru~.\J L. . J " 7 r - l 1- \. z, \ ~h L. i.. "l. Ut "L \ )Jv 7 ..[3] IeoUlQ nQ ' affotd t he lux.~ of.!?ctin~uponmy ~isi:on!or th e l..etnaiadCJ'J r u a t d a y Ia t . ~w~ t i m nti\y JuJie ms~ t l~t t H \ i t Man J: au D isrA ct C oatt ~t1-_1 ~ (1 -' 'l. . 1 . H I' '\ 3' , ! o r 1~3'~ ..'aU'tllj,t day an a thad to & 1 t ttl the liSt Ct),Wi fOr a tun day, dealmg With it ", 'c ry large

list, tnt.l1.idilli ~us arrest ~es uruncdia~ly fier b_earin& the SFO~sapplication.' Q Q v i Q t l 5 i 1 y , th e liberuy Q C th e .im1htjt 'h~al outwe.i 8M my otheroonsid.erations.

, V O I O - C O N 1 I N U A N C E .' ( V .C , , ) v N 1 A X: 2 - S P ~ C \ N G - S , ~R U L E .

rr


23/32

,,tI

,,,f

\ f 1 ' ! 2. \_ ?-- \1 1. 4. \ ,Ale , ""2. l : ' 2 - 0III ( : . 1 ) an Q~ iorwt i loh the l ' tlJ'lXUllLUl1penalty is : nnpr tSonmonl t fa r life or

im p r is O T J I T 1 l! m f t o : r 1 4 ,)'t ar s o r m o r e ; or --\ ) . ( . . . . .b) \ . t f r .'L I, ~ 0.. '. j;'b . "'... ,ail ~;n~ of'~empw,llg or ~lnng to ccmmn, or OJ; . -Ing a pw. tY TOthe oo:nnmssion of', Qf 9f being lID accessory aftcr 1Jl~ met to, m, offence\J.t. :Ofcrrcu1o U l'p a r a - . g ra p h ( .. l " 4 - t \ . . " 1. NQ . 1. ~ \"L- I ~ t ~ 32) The .I may, on a w o . ,ten applulBtlOll fOt the pu.rpos~ made by the 'P'Elosecwnr

l~tJO Iud . d served on the. accused. pmtlD before tn c uecused pm-SOll is8iV'tn itlcharge to the J m : y , o rd er that th e aeaused per son be to .cd fo r th e Dfr~cB befo re theJl1dge\vi:thout aj~.1 10'"i.j, 1 .t z, I t. 1 2 - 1 fI'" z, , f I ! . ! : ! ' 4 . It l : z - l(3) . l1owevor. ~ l\ldL~ may -m~ an order \Ul(l,1tf s ..ggs~c t1 n (2 Dllly l. f th e

~~1MOD .~~ '~tla.' e d D ? - : 'S . Q f l ~ a v e b~ gi~e.n o n . QPPmt.. unity : U J be nelU'a in~latlOill-lil ~ ' .. 1manollr t t ( l Q ft .tllQWlng such bearUlg, the Judge Is :S8tisfied-IlL' ...,p -\J. " , ",. l "" l' ~ . 4 ~ ::I .~ltlmt aU reDson :ab l~ ~&ed.\U'al 9Ld$IS tif any). and (ill crthel' rCY~Qnabltarrang~rsl (if lmy) to faciU~al~ the shortening o r r h : c Dial, hltVe beenrn:adc,bu t the d~n ofthl: trial still s~likeJy to t ;Xceed 20 days; tm 4\ J .l.. ': + . l J . 1 . "l ~ . I - z . . Il.!ll . (b) that in tlle CU"Gwuumce ofth,e elf! tie accused p_on'e:rig.bt to J , n a 1 byjury is ~~hed by the liktliJlt'Jod that p e en tia] .fu ror will nee be able top arfon n rheitdu.dM effec tively. .~(,. . .4. \ '"Z. l "'Z- ~ 0t ' : ! . J , l " '< O ~ . \ & tj G Il4~ w~consm-el l~ ta t th~ p t lr p os e;s o f suUseenot) (3)(b), tUe cm :umst aJ 1* of the

c as~e ~ must. take uno ~l tlte fotlo\V'1ng~rs:\:\,\..,' \\ t,! ot '-.' r J " ' ~ l . ?- , ~ 2 t,. l. 1 . a , ) ! f ' i n~tnbcr tm d nta'Urc of the Off~Si fjth \ v b . u : h li\e aeells~ person l,SchaiS6d=~ - --\1.(..' (b) the l1tltnre of the lSSll '!s likely to be ' in~~olvfJd:\ J . t . . , (0) the volume ofcvidcmee likely to b e ~ented:\J .e '- d) th e i J:npQs: it io la on 'P [en.'tiw j\JlQPl o f si: tt in& fo r the liltely d1U"atiol'l of tht!~: .\).l

: ~ O \ 6 - t O N T I N U A M C E .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I N 6 - S l N l ~ X .R U L E .

,


24/32

r

:SYNTM-COMMUNICATION-WOBP-KEY :1 = ADVERB2=VERl33 =ADJECTIVE7', 4=PRONOUN' B ::: PAST-TIM E-TENSE9:::FUTURE- T IME -TENSEThedateof:. ~ftbe ~ew legis1atioawas 2$ j~e 2 e O JfM~_~~mw'C'PLE-YERB

1 ; . , - 'L \ ' ? .. \ ,~1.. \ '1. 1 1- , S I' "l.;-S 2(1).:s:3 ID c~e in to fo rce six m on ths: aiT er the cil;Iie on whJ.ch ' the Act ~~ivs.d.~ RI)~t As:en ; n . Q ! . t1 ~ y 2~net~her l008.U.~Tb~I'p..tiaoming Trial\J,e.. ~II. 3 It, , , 4 \ '1. ~ 1 i NO , 'f .[ C l l The indi~!Illt r:;onfaU1s 36 QO~ 11l al~ ~e up 0 L 6 !!~sat10ns oft. b . 1 - . . b' """1 .., \ 'b .L.' ...A L \f 1- \ ?_ lrb \ I,obunllmg y a..er;epUQll, DlVI)1 'Vi1i lg, .Ow ac(;1lS~ 7 a , U8mg ' a dOCUTIil~;o1wS onesny;:;- ~, ."1,-1.-. 3 I,., , \, 1 " , - : t - , \ N o 1.. ,., ""C ,~aWlS to MY Vr,t cnzt i 0111), . t:\vo af wun~ a document wiih \ .!tent ~(J ~fr~d agahlstMrWg,zelo~y. o!e. C~f of rr~g ~crs p~_tiJ'i 65(l) ~the crimn A~t,0 LL I , ?- , " 'h 'J I .:.- ' - r - N ''1., '1, \ l.. !Cl k\ ,3, ~and on e otf~g; 'to p1 'oducc \lnc\Ul\~, as ~q~twder s 45 Q : t ; ' th e SetlQUS Ft1}ud..... 1. \.j :. 1";;-\ 1.. ':\ ~ \ _~, ]. \I'" 4-9 .f fi ce .Ac t . These t '\ \'o la~tcbaT,ges~ ~1l pmst MrWenzel ~ne,\ 1 , . l '1 . . ' . . . . J 'l 1 . \ 3[7] The qfjmc.es in~lVl!l ~~ eompla mortg~~e &a~ds, with ~1l1tiple

" , l+ . ,i1;... 4, t...:..'" 1. . I - r 1 '2 . '8 3 _ } I '_ ! t . .. .fr'ilDsacnona . u ./.Wj'ers WJ.4lll1 U'8.l1S.aCticms, spre :u1 O"\ltU' some ~ ~arat~ }!!lij'~rtla,with what bas D e e m dcscri,bed. M a (ophistica,te4 modus operantb m I a t m . g to the.' .. off(mding. ,.It,~ theprOR8Cuuon _ ( I tWill in~y i n st anecs, }J il "Cipert ieswerebeing t>'at'Chased by cmtt t ie$ :controUed bf Mr Weri2el and tlteri aold by that enti ty toanother ~omi Who worlaid..b Mr. ''1lemel, or was o th c : rw tso ~oSf ;l y assodated withhim. These pu.t t:ihas~ verc lhen a~ by Mr Wf lID ,2 c lt o s i~ documen t s andenfl!r agrettmet\ls. including lo ~.i1 Pf 'n catioWJ. w hiell, they knew liute about a n d . . inl tlatfyeases W_Q loa.ns Wete' I : \ t t 3 . t l : j e d 'tbcre wert : s=e dllY pa)' l ll~ ofbO,ttQw~If i. m d s back to tlm origialtrendor. The 'AJlume of e lt1~ll&e is 1 : l k e l y 10 be- lal. .11 elwithsome 4 .3 p'rOsecutjOll M.tn ossc s. S ix g'-tho se Witnesses' brildS of eVlden,lt~ exceed :WpaS"es! ad t\vo of them ~eee :d, SO ' }Jages, 'I.b .e 4 1 pTosecmiou ,Vimessl!s a re ;!.DAde upof eight b~!l 'OW'ffSor Purcnas~1 four Teal j~e' agents, six employees of husi~osru n by ME W~l. f ive m~_ bl'okers, n lenders' repl'csenkttives,a J?olu~edoeu .men t ~~, three la,wymat 1a~n1 cxec~tiVf;'and wo Serious Fraud O f1 1eeiuvestJgators.~.~ .l 4 - - \ 2- ,'- c : . .'t, \ ~z ,( J T he c tial was Sel Qo\W1 for 10 \ vebks~wliitili~o f l t l ! e U . WIll be a eotts'ldenlbki l'l'lp o si ti on o n ally [urc r, The Slriolis FrJ1Ud Office main tain that the CYldence isc;Qmplox. . v l u m i : n : us ~ in mm,' 'Cases J.tms ta1 'J hny repc t i1ive. Tt would , tom.~ be e:atemely d if!ieult C al' an y p erson ummed to th e a b s o r p t i C l 1 1 of complex: V O I O - C O N T I N U A N C E .(V .t . ): Z - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E ,

,II


25/32

tiI

,Jt#f

evidence T O distmgmsh o ne tran sa&Uo n & aman other at th,e cenelusicn of a trial o ft 1 l l i i length.\j,c... - J

I ' ) . . . 1 1,..", ? t , . . \ , _ 9 . ! - 0 .\ t" 'l- ....\ 1... I[9 J 1 a,nl. ~~ ,.ttty Trim LlalSon . 1114 . , fo r M~ and am ~Jtelya reo ~')Ith e, ~ t)J 4 - . \ 1.. \ 3 t l ' J < > : ; . L f o .p ar n cu la r r ugbllm l$ r J 1 I . t ~el man . St)\ltti A uc " and JC!2spco(ive JI I.U'ors. There ar e

50I1lC:"~ of the order of ISO Jdenrifillhle ~hnie groups within to e outhAuckla.nd. . .area, Ime,rp r .. s ue reqUU'c4 in l.iIl' 'Lllin f " , my staniial:u ]!!SOllee, ~~y vlilort: . e ~ane' .g 0 Jurors, to I!l\'lt~~y

flanel mmJlb~ who b i eoneemed about t hei r lack of ot limited English to mak e theirconcmns lmOv,rn 'to JUC. 1m t l l have a M nvenaticm "i1li thai p a r t ic u : 1 m - panelTtterqbl3', in ord~ to assess whetl1lI tbey are likely to ha e s:~5ci=t b.'llowledgt; of1 3n~ to Se)"Vtl. It also shoulcl notbc: f t l tgorteo that, parl ieularl w itln n the Pacif icIslaDds~ many p e'Jp le = p cd ln ce diffiGulty i t ) ' the E.nglish Language use of tlo'UblenegmhfcS. In om; recent trial, t had to oxcWie fiv4! panel mm1:bers because o.flanguage d i f f l c ; ; ; u 1 l i : n .\ . J . c, J.. L."{ 1. I;..~ 1 ' 2 , . , I \ 1... l .$ .,. 4 r J, .{1 1 ] O f parti!llhur ceacem (0mtc was the fact ' C i 1 i t Mr Wenzc 1 J at th e deposmons

4 -h~~iIlg, refused ~()~~CIlttt() 1Jl1) ' brief of t~idenct: at ail b t i : n s th~ subj.ccl to ' -"band-up ' ~ Partly as a result, tbe~epr&tfons h e d . n . s fan for a [ota'l o t 11days, duringwhioh it was oruYfjOsstb le fo r 1 1 )f the 4 1 pro5'CCutiGn WiU:lMSes to pve evidcoC4.had .~foTl1 m e afiidavi evidence from ~ Danb)'~ it Serious Fmud Off icei n "estigittor l that even p~ly f orma l eY id cn ~ (5ll(~b as that by b an k o ffic m tt:mrelyprooucin,J d~.Wl1ent la l 'Y r:xhibiu) c o\tId n Q~be ilgtetd. Fur ther , at p resen t, M 'tW en~l h a s , indicated that nO wi~~ may be ,rt la d a t th e for tncQuUtli tr ial th ere,arc D e fmm nl a~si~ ilmt be isprepantd to make and no schc J.ules ~ be :agreed,

1 ~ ~ 1 0 N T I N U A N C E .I . A C I N G - S Y N T A X -

~S! ' i .61Jii~~MMUNICATION.WQBQKi' t2=VERB3 :.!ADJECTIVE4 = = P R O N O U NB ""PAST-TIME-TENSf9 =fUTURE-TlME-TENSI;0 ;, CONJUNCT IOND PV =D.ANSLING.PAf f9CIPlE_YEBa


26/32

~X-CQMMUNICAnON-WORD;l{f;-'1.l' :;ADV~RB2 = -V ERB3 ; AD JECTIV E4 = PRONOUN(j :=P A S T - TIME-TENSE9: fU TU RE- TIM E -TE NS E0==CONJUNCTIONbp v = = DAN,GLlNG~PARTlCIPLE.VEBB

,~,,I

r,

o n : 1 y people to f 6ec I;! c~ t~ oftilleptio'n thllt can. h' i lve their r i g h t t > to Itj U r y trialremoved_ T~, he~o1'ltended. was CQ ut nllt 'yt o t he f air trial prOvisiorm o.f'tht NewZealand 1 3 m oflUghts ~t' rl l' ld he pom teOQut th at th e 1egiswnon. i t s e ; : i f , camra.\


27/32

,tI.';SYNTAXCQMMUNIO,6 iT ION~wo6D.~ ' t ,'1 =ADVERS2==VERB3 ==ADJECTIVE4= PRONOUN8 ;: E As y. T IM E -TENSE9 : : FUTUBE-T IME-TENSEdc : CONJUNCn:ON, ., '. DPV = ~NGL.I~PABTICIPLE.VEABof QUDts];1l m e mdictn:tent to mU:lmthe m al mere ,ll1ann.8'C:;fI.bl~~~ a l'e'r It was

: V O I O - C O N T I N U A N C E .( V . C . ): Z - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E . /0furtber suhmitteij that if this Ceerr \l~e to ~t the ilppUcatiallt I t would ;simplyeD~ oU Illg e t he S : e r i c : 1 U S :Fta\ld O ~ o tfil ~rload lll(Uctmmlts as l i t . mat te r ofrOUl1flt . w

Iordetto ensure: that it OD~ned a ludgealQll lc trial.\ ) c . .

: ! C ~ ~ ~ ~ l s'n ot th e cm.:lypt 'Qbh:m. It is difficult fo r U'lrlst people ro: t ' t1kc~~, ti:iric away ~th it;~)'er'y...da~'llvQ tvatkndju:ry ~ce. This is .pnrtiuulfllItly '~ r~ pi n : . l't U,c..." " u r n . 1~6:.t,-.VO\O--' r r h e r c 113~ obliption (in tb~ Cro"A"t1te e:t'L'itlrc that tbit DUtnber of CO~S 'illthe mdlc: tment Is ktpttQ a~OOFn. 'bl t ' level. H'o ,vevcr . mw UJ.O:m 4otnplt!lease II ma~ ru>1''be pll~!iible' to lmnt tm n un lber o f eo'Ul1't OT th c~~.fJf!l,.lidenC!!'"rtthout (lbseurml tbt true ruttw:~aM 11 Im ge of the eomJuet ttlleged ""'


28/32

I

,t,.M,$Y_" tTAX.CQMMUNtCAI IQNWOBO_KEY~1J;ADVERB2~ VERS3= ADJECnVE4=P'RONOUN8 ;:: !? A SJ.-TI ME TENSE

I.VQ.\O- -J. 9~EUTURfTIME.TENS.E1.. ~ ., . 0 ;:jCONJUNCTION~ ~ 6 \ : a ~ 1 ' ~ 9 SquaM,S tj1.., lord Phill1ps MR.): OPV =DANGLING-PARTICIPLE-YEas"I belil"'' tbllt it will ~ly b e ' possiMe fat n 'C~pme-tlt .TUcip l with theG6-0pcrntbm at eo~~lt and ~u::ntio\.l1~ ceunsel t o r botb proSet:ll1:ionmd a~ttmee. by p n x; ,e :i1 l '" ~veting C:OUlUS gmd mlg-!mctn8, e\'tdc:nec tore d lee: the ~ 10 a dimens Q. D that ' ! h e : jury eu n C'rxmpT.~t:L B' lhls pns-SU}l1,JQit5 tl fugb C i f t : 'e Clf Q,cmfidenc:e un m o pan ofthu = Q D . I: ie m e d . perhaps1u~r than btte itlln rCf1~(J 'na .b1y ex.peot te be W ld i tL y available and, if adcl'ec ,e(1Il1I1$,~l~s our to 5 ,Poi l rGUle r thIrt ttl co-operate (nOT bi lp1l1,1 ". ~iMllon that! have alledenQ~)~I b : e J i e \ e suc h a ceurse 1 s l ik~ly to rendt:r i!tri111'tMmanl1ij 'i ,bl~.nu_& pr~t.ss CD:\]1 remlers 1 I b : i a l ~,geablc byremoVing !'erm the Jury It large: {SOIDC:,'tl.meS: CVcn the wajOl') pm 01 U 1 : eeVideenuths.t is 17eleWlT W th e ~C1ltral i.ssu~ the ~ of th e defendantO~ m e evidence. t~t ' i s t rf i_ g 4 'r m e c o f r o m t ~ jU : r y ~ c :og~nt , 1 bel ieve that3: tr l 1 pto~rlQ.uir~ on e 10 Temo\'e i'rOltl th e mb1,ma1 a larg~ p art of tile:re_~ evidfmce, bt03llS! itwould otherwise ovtr\Vhdlll t 1 1 C - t r l 1 i : m n l , be,seriously t1a~ 8 ! t t 1 . SO flu- &8.1 '1Ull caneenJed; thiS \S th e prim~re~'Qnw h y . 1 nouderthat t ! 1 l l 1 1 J l 1 e l . GAWl!d.eascs sMuldrun be tried b y juri~#.

\J. 0P.l[10J Je Slerl3USF~d o L e n e k c t r l \ l : r n ~- i n i o n t o ~ e r~n I~tlie L~ dI ' l l i . , . 1.. : t * ._I 1.~) ~0.....-. .?Order Select Com nun ce to. tb(lSoue 0 ' 1 ' 1 t .n Bil l ., wb le b s ta te d:- . . - - -ULJ,\}cM_

"We I~~ow'lq .,r the fundam~~ rilht "to trl;11b .y jury snou1d bep:~ed. lU1d rtot.e that fJl!& 1 1 1 1 1 does nor l i m i t OD s right to someo ir cu .rn stn l\C ~. l:l1 e ngh t to . n jU ry lM Lhu it s o undar lc n in the),lagttn C:. 'i tUlu . n 4 L$~dified ;n s 66 ttl in e ~bm$al'Y Prtlec:.edinJ,S Aet Uti7' trod S l 4 ( 1 ! : ) o ftbe 'New ze-_a:am (1 rugllts r u n 1. b\lt'- S 1 'bject te s s o! that A,g~Se~ t1ou Sallows justificqlmm' fC b - p1aud C ! 1 1 l t h e : rl fi h, lS ana ~om.&ontilined in. fum Act, The At4Qme'y . .~eneraI OtlosiO;rs that the limitSp top t> sed on jury trlilli d o nDt'breaelt th e 8 1 1 1 t;>frull:\-=?'~

~ \ j&r _ ' . 4 - ; I "LI' ,_":l "2- \ t . - J tJ" ~~ , t _ _-z, \~~diriglY~ it wassubm1~ that tilt: ~w statutory ~V1moll do p~ tl' " " : 2 . .. . \ . . 1 1 " I'. 1 ~t..~ . . . : ' 3 1 " ~ I . 3 Y . a l a , r: _....I~ , 'A..1d....~SQf1ufletmlt on tne ~~t (0 II Jury tn'. and ~ous s a J . e ,g u w ,1 o IO ~ p : r o vlw z w ~t

requite the Judge 10 'be atistied tbat ~s [hat could 1)3, e been tal::iemto shorten :thet ' 1 i a l have been taktm, as w ell as lumg lnt a.cuounl ti tst at specified iSJmeS befol'4grantin~ th~ O lder. In pamcuUtt. 4ot: 'uments pursuan.ttu SS11, 1 . () a n d 1 33 of heEvidence , A.c, 200S n : t " ~bean served on d ,!cncc : cou~1. giving nl'ltioe ()f hearsay

: V O I D - C O N T I N U A N C E ,( V I C I ): 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -R U L E . {(

~on tQ offer do~u without "Piling a vl"itll1l:saand ilnotice of in ten tio n toQIftr ill cyjd~e l U m i m . a . d c s o f v .1u .rW:nom1 d.ocuments . Mcotdlngly, U u ; r c ,i tTe noJurtner j '~asonable p romeduml o r~ 'S ili~Iem=nlli whi< h c ould ~a:tl th eihortemn,g of t h e - trial cmd Mr Wml2I ' !~ baa ronp ly de .m~ ted to -d ale lIisu nw ilJ.: in gn e$S t o aS si& l inthat regard.


29/32

a\o e, e.1 though ~Beet ion (2) I1no~; the' ~p l iC ' a. tiQn to b made at un . dtne befor~1m a Q lm S e d p = r $ .o lQ lS g f ~ 1 m m c h a r g e 10 f . l ' [ e jL L t ) ' , itwould bQ most uIUiatis~ ift ha t app lie.a: t ionwas only ~~()n the firsl dOll' of ttial w irh fUl .uernely large jw:y~el awaith:\J th e result of th e 1 J ; p p 1 4 c a t i f 1 n . r~ldJW)' wmen tb l ' im;la an d the Colltt.llyerlletwcOIl th~ .lre; fur too mnall ~ ~p with such IihlWb r I;)fJ~ mdroany

I


30/32

'" . , , cl oe 'n JU1V IIYIUOUVArlD !%WOR' p:REY :1-ADVERB -2 " ,V E RB3 = = ADJECTIVE

I . 4 = PRONOUNS = P A S J - T 1 M E - TENSe9= FUTURE~T IME -TENSE0= CONJUNCT IONDPrV=DANGLING-PARTICIPLE-VER6of them would inevitably have to wait outside the building in the open air. In orderto tr y ami avoid thr~Jscenario, I simply /anred to establish whether an applicationunder the new statutory previsions was likely to be made by the: Serious FraudOff ice . SO l that t im e- c ould be allocated fo r its hearing p rior to thecommencemenr ofthe tria] \ J , l . o .

, l~ i ~~ 4 l '1 . r t J . ~D '1 . .., .[16] As 10 the assertion tlli1t the SFO, in effect, select which Judge shall preside- - - -over their trials, I have to say that 1 regarded that submission with both astonishmentand rncreduhty. A::;the Jury Liaison Judge, I would have to be the first to be awareof any such arrangement, Jury trial Judges are assigned simply in accordance 'Withtheir availability and subject to the roster wlrich is designed to ensure. as far as ispracticable, for all Judges to experience as much variety as possible and for eachJury Trial Judge to share equal responsibility for that work, It is true that in the caseof anticipated Iong , trials, the trial Judge iSI whenever possible, assigned at arelatively early stage but this is to enable that Judge to deal with pre-trial issues andto ensure that tho long trials are apportioned fairly, having regard to the onerousresponsibility of the Judge in such circumstances. There is certainly no arrangementat Manukau as to the assignment of certain judges only to particular types, of trial. Ona personal note 1 would that my own previous experience of an SFO trial is limitedto one instance when I was at th e Bar and I defended ODe OJ" two Accused chm-gedwith diverting charitable funds to their own UEe.

~ . ( ( J 9 J\ " 1 ! - r i",' '2 CT 4 \ 1'"3 ' 4. 0[27J I have considered the number and nature of the offences charge and I am,_ 4 I y., -, ., . ~ ,... 1'1" ~ Il l;. I .3 '7 ,I , c . satisfied, for the r easo ns ad va nc ed by the S en ous Fraud Office, that the Indic tment- - - 1 - ~

cannojzeadily be reduced. The volume of evidence likely to be presented isextremely substantialU,L. . v,. I ' l l J , I ~ ~ I . ! o J L ,l z : ? \ , f ' J i J 2 ,!!-I 'I j ~'1 I .P8] As to the nature of the issues likely to be mvolvejj~I tumt,d to the evidence-presented at depositions for some assistance in this regard. r notice at page 321 that1he forensic accountant, Ms Pedan, was cross-examined about the narure of financials tructures in the C aym an Islan ds, her experience (if any) in the setting Up ofcenstructive trusts within transactions and hOT experience of' financing betweenccmp anie~ a-nd trusts. At page 318, the sante witnesswas asked about the possib Ieterms of . 1 . constructive trust 4 . L l d thewitness dealt with a scenano put to her by

: V O I O - c O N T I N U A N C E ,( V , C , ): 2 - S P A C I N G - S Y N T A X -


31/32

!SY.U ' IAX. -COM M UNICATION:WQ RP-KEY:''" . A 6V E RB": = = IEAB~ =: ADJECTIVE4=PAONOUNV =PASFTIME-TENSE I . = . . EUTUBE-IIME- TENSEo = CONJUNCTIONOPV ",.DANGLlNG~PABI 'C lp lE.YEBB

, ~ O \ D _ C O N 1 \ N U A N C E ., ( ~ , C , ) . Y N 1 A X -: 2 , _ S ? A , C IN G -SR U L E ,referring t - o an aser b:.lvin g a liabl1 i'ty witl:ia c en ein am eun t w hiell lualmpu!:a.hOii!i i l l " tb e loaa to '\'!luo ratio and if feO 't~d the n et ~set po,sition tt the borrowerapplicant. At page 309, Mr Biolett1 asked aglJWJtion whkb! In part, drew t i l t : ' ;response:\ . 1 . ' . . , ~\J~o-

ji!f tner'f is ~ll obligaticm iJ11l)Q ed. to Jnee . t o .n~(}m~ pa .;ymeuu ta another :perOn. that nnp t c t s en th~Ul!:lome_run or thl: bw:roWc::r i lJld may we l li tx lpM11ipon the~ a.bility '(0 meet tlu:lr Qblige,rioIl$ und~T tmy morrgrtge andt h o : s c - lite ~ thatouglnoo be Wselosc dm lhll' ien dIDg institu~! SO that!her ~atI pr~oper~~s:~ T oan to ~tm:tiO anatbe debt Servioing:Rmosof the:are~~ "!J.C

..'t. n,' 4 ... .t. l L *l,. ,.., .o;'l r~~ 1,. 1 " " " 'v.",,''+ I "'!t,} d R 'MT .r> u)lettl wen p ut .t.UO :P~ili:l.UOU ~t a plIuA. S sec lln !y I4 \


32/32

i s4. "l.. t . .3 4 e .I r . . JO 3. 1,."1 ~(33J l'l1u!, the g rou nds a v e Jn nde out an d the ap plic ation p l 1 r S 1 l 1 U ' 1 t to s 3 .1D is- - - -Lg .g I i l m e ' d . .-

!{nyWadeDistrict Gun IJlidf!eItf.

~.,u:@X-CQ MM UNICATIQ N-W QRD =K EY~ ..! = APVEHBi t e, \IERf!3 : :; AD JEC 'T lVE4 - ' " PRO\lOUNE ". f'&SJ:TIME-TENSE'" ~~aE"IIME-TeNSEo ::-:CON~IUNCTltONp r ;s 'l ~ ! }ANGLING-PARTICIPLE-VERB

SnlitntoB'

2009-06-26.l.hapu to court of appeal - amicus-curiae with docs in syntax ~001876

Documents