More than 14,000 documents disclosed late in aborted final finance company trial

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Justice Mark Woolford says there was no bad faith but the amount of information not disclosed was extensive.

A nine-month trial against four businessman related to the collapse of two finance companies was aborted after an 'unprecedented' amount of information was given to the defendants late.

It was still not known whether a retrial would be sought, but the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) was considering its processes in light of the issues in the case.

Earlier this month, Justice Mark Woolford 'aborted' a trial in which the FMA was bringing charges in relation to the collapse of Mutual Finance and Viaduct Capital, which owed investors more than $17 million.

Paul Bublitz and co-defendants Richard Blackwood, Bruce McKay and Lance Morrison denied charges of theft by a person in a special relationship, making false statements to a trustee, and false statements by a promoter.

* Four go on trial following million-dollar collapse of finance companies

* Mutual Finance offender gets sentence discount for document handover**

Another defendant, Peter Chevin, pleaded guilty to 10 charges of theft by a person in a special relationship on the morning before the trial began.

The trial began last August and was expected to last 12 weeks.

Chevin was in March sentenced to nine months home detention on one less charge than the 10 he had pleaded guilty to.

Woolford's full reasons for aborting the trial were released this week.

The judgment said a list of 14,619 documents was not provided by the prosecutors to the defendants until March this year.

This was because of reasons such as irrelevancy or litigation privilege, but the defence believed many of the documents should be disclosed - disclosure rules also said defendants were entitled to know when documents were withheld.

The trial was halted, and despite more than 5500 documents eventually being disclosed, was later aborted.

Justice Woolford said there was a clear breach which was particularly problematic as it was only beginning to be fixed after the main defendant's case was nearly complete.

While the judge appreciated the 'enormous' burden of disclosure in this case, it was not acceptable to withhold relevant information in the interests of efficiency.

'The errors in disclosure thus far are accordingly the responsibility of the Crown.

'It is not the defence's responsibility to enquire further about lists or documents if not provided, especially given the defence may not be aware of the documents they do not have.'

Justice Woolford said there was no suggestion the non-disclosure was in bad faith and said it was inadvertent.

But it was still 'extensive'.

'The volume of late disclosure is seemingly unprecedented in New Zealand.'

An FMA spokesman said it was considering the judgment, which found there was a real possibility of unfairness if the trial proceeded.

'The Crown, through the Auckland Crown Solicitor, will determine whether the prosecution intends to seek a retrial.

'We will consider our processes concerning disclosure in light of the issues that have arisen during the course of this trial.'

In August, Crown prosecutor David Johnstone told Justice Woolford that 'the essence' of the Crown case was that Bublitz acquired and used the two finance companies to support his various property investments, and was assisted by his co-accused.

A sixth person who was charged in the case, former Blue Chip chief executive Nick Wevers, died in 2014.