IT 1 t Le ~4, D, -9, -r.. -$, ~l, ~ j: Copyelai.

n1 ~20tl2,

-1 FOR THE CITlZEN'S-DAMAGE:S OF 'rHE FICTIONAL-SYNTAX-OATH OF OFFICE ARE WITH THESE FICTIONAL-MODIlTICATION-SYNTAX-CLAIMS OF THE ENGLISIILANGUAGE-SYNTAX WrI'8 AN OATH-'WORD-SYNTAX-MEANING-FRAUD OF TI-iE VQIDSENTENCE-STROCTORE-SYNTAX WITH THESE WORD-SIMULATION-SYNTAX, WORDPRESUMPTION-SYNTAX, WORD-MEANING-ASStlMPT10N-SYNTAX, PER,JURY, LIE AND JURISDICTIONAL-ILLOSION-SYNTAX BY THESE HISTORICAL-AILING-OATHS WITH THESE aIDDEN-.AGEN-DAS OF AN ATLING-WORD-SYNTAX-OSAGE BY THE UNITEDSTATES - 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 i S-ONITED STATRS-_D.ISTRICT-COURT ARE WrTH THE UNITED-STATES AS AN lITLING~WORDGUI SE: "THE (ADVI£RB) CONSTITUTION (ADJE;C'I'IVE) OF r PRONOUN) THE (ADVERB) UNITED (IUJ.lEC'flVE/ SL~TES(PR()NOUN} OF (A1JV/i1Rl:J) NEW (ADJECTPlE) ZEALAND/PRONOUN) - UNDER THE UNITED-STATES-POSTAL-UNION-GuLSE .

.... 3 FOR THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNTVERSAL-POSTAL-UN;rON-SWITZERLAND AND UNITED-STATES-POSTAL-UNION OF THE NEW-ZEALNm ARE WITH THE VAS SALPORTING-CLAIM OF THESE COURTHOOSE~VESSELS WITH AN AILING-COMMUNICATTQI\! BY THE BILLS OF THE LADI.NG WITH AN AILING-GOISE-COMMONICA.TION-PAPERVE:SSEL-LANGUAGE AND WITH. AN AILING-POSTAL-TREATY BY THE UNITED STATES OF NEW-ZEALAND-CORPORATION WITH AN A.IL.ING-COMMUNICATION-MAIL-GUISE BY THE NOM-DE-GUEFRE-NAMES WITH AN AILTNG-DEAD-CITIZE'N-GUISE AS THE VESSEL WITH THE VOID--CLO$URE BY THE UNITED STATES OF' TEE ..NEW-ZEALANOPOSTAL-aNION'S-GUISE: OATH OF OFFICE,

-4 FOR THE UNIVERSAI,-POSTAL-ONION-ILLUSIONS OF THE LANGUAGE-SYNTAXGUISE ARE WITH ~BE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES-POSTAL-UNION WITH THE FRAUDULENT-SYNTAX: DE' T'RE FICTIONA1-SYNTAX-COMMUNICATION-DRYOOCKVASSALS WITH THE PERSON'S-CONTRAC'I'ING-ITALIC-OATH-SYNTAX AS A DR'iDOCKTREATY BY THESE COURT-FIDOCIARY-GUISE .

.... 5 FOR THE VOID-CLOSURES OF 'I'HE COMMmnCATION-SYNTAX-MODIE'LCATIONS ARE WITE THE WRONG~WOlm-SYNTAX-DErINITIONS AND: WRONG-WDRD-SYNTAX-TERMS OF

THE 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 THE NOW-T.l"ME-CLAIM OF THE CORRECT-SEN'I'ENGE:~STB.OCTURE-CQMMUNICATmN-SYNTAXLANGUAGE-CONTRACT WITH THE PEOI"LE OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE "BY TIlE PEOPLE'S-CLAIMS WITH THIS VOID-JURISDICl'IONAL-OATR AND COURTFIDOCIARY-GUISE •

.. 7 FOR THE STOPPING AND FOR THE WORD-TERM-CQRRECTING OF TH.E COMMDNlCAT ION -8 YNTAX -WRONGS ARE WITH THIS CLAIMANT-crTI ZEN' S-CLAIM OF AN AUTHORITY WITH THE T I TLE-- 4 2 : IT. -5 . -c , -8 . - -1.9 86 FOR ..THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FAC'l'S BY 'l'HE CORRECT-SENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMmnCA'I'ION-SYNTAXLANGUAGE-CLAIMANT OF THE NEW-ZEALAND.

-8 FOR THE CORREC'I' ON DE' TEiESE WRONGS :IS WITH THE CLAIM OF THE CLAIMANT OR WITH THE VACATING OF AN AILING-GUISE WITH THIS UNITEDSTATES- POSTAL-mnON-DI -STRIC'Ji-COORT OF THE NEW-ZEALAND-TERRI'l'ORY.

COPlteLIUM/COPYRIGHT.

"---- .:AU 0 RAPH Sf! 1

;PYCI.A lMI OPYRlGHT

COUR'l'-

#FOR THE NUMBERING-CODE-TERMS OF 'raE WORD-SYNTAX-OPEAATIONS. WWW.DWMLC.COM

E'OR THE NUMBERING-OPERAT10N OF A SE'Jl..CE-CONSOl..IDATlON ME 1HTR THE CTJAIM BY rTHE CLAIMANT.

-NtlMBERING-"KElYS AND ~ TERMS

-0 = CONJUNCTION = llNllY-EACTS = l'lrID/OR

-1 = ADVERB ,_ l>l, 03<>4, 4-1>2, 4-j>3<>4, 11-1 1<>1<'3<>4, = :> < = MODH'YTNG-AC1'TQN-SYN'l'AX,

CtiANGI:NG- ACT INTO AN VERB OR ADJECTIVE-SYNTAX = VOID-FACT = VOID-CON'1'RAC'[' = AILING-WORDCOJ\l'l'EXT-SYNTAX, AD=< PRE FIX -NO-VERB, NO- 'rH INKING

~2 = VERB '= 1"'2, ACTION-WoRD-'l'HItn<ING-SYNTIDi:, :CORREc:T-110RD-VERB: IS = SINGULAR, ARE '= E'LURAL -3 .. ADJECTIV'E = ]>4, 1>3><4 =:; COLORING-SYNTAX OF' THE "FACTS = fLUJSION/FIGTlON = VOm/OMIT, AIlV=NO-CON'I'RACT "'" AILING, AD :0 PRE FJ:l(: * , JEC =OPlNION, TlVE = CONTRACT

-4"" p.RONOmr ... 4, 1>3<>Q, /)-1 =:FBO = PREEIX*, 00 = NO ON = SUFFIX" = VOID = NO-CON'I'RACT-\lI0RD = AILING. WHEN A ROW-SYNTAX AS A FACT IS WITH 'l'BE PLA~T BEFORE A THE SECOND-NOON-SYNTAX, THEN THE FIRST-NOON~S'!NTAX IS WITH 1'BE CHANGING IN'l'O AN ADJEC'l'I-VE..,MOD.IIi'IER-SYNTAX WITH THE CBANGmG OF THE. FOLLOWING-NOUN nrro A PRONOUN BY THE COLOUNG-MODIElCA'l'ION OR OPINIONMODIFICATION FROM AN ORIGINAL-FACT) WITH A DIFE'ERENT-SYNTAX-MEAHING AND DEFINITION.

"'5 = pOSn'.tON = NOW~TIMB-RTJlJEslvOTntG-PODITION = 5-6-; , (PRE_-POSI'I':ION = VOTD-NOW-TIME~OSlTI0N, NO-NOW-TIMffi-POSrT~ON. 5-6-7 p~ AS A SLNGLE-JOINING-PHRASE. " -6 = LODIO = 7-6-7. = ORIGINAL-OWNERSHIP. (ART C~E = NO-CON~CT ~ AILING)

-"I = FACT = 5-6-1. : NOW-TlME-WORD-CONTRAC'l'-COMMUNICATION. (NOUN ~NO-NOI ~NO-CONTRACT=AILING.

: POSITIONAL-LODIO-FACT=PHRASE-SYN'I'AX = ONB-WORD-EAC'l' of the 900-WORD-MBMUNGS . ... 8 .. PAST-TIME: va I D OF TElE NOW-TIME - _OU-Jil1IDTCTTO~ -1J1l;J.\I1JE •

~9 = 1!'O'l'URE -T1ME: VOID 01, THE NOW -TIME -JURI S 01 CTI ON- VENUE.

<: >, >, -, - FOR THE orRECTION3 01' THffi WORD-CmmEc.TTON-SYNTAX

DPV = DANGLlNG-PARTICI~AL-VERB, VOIU-S8NT8NCE-ENDING-SYN~ BOXING = OMIT = VOID-CONTENT/CDNTEXT (WORLD-STYLES-SYNTAX-HANUAL) ITALIC-SYN1'AX, = VOti)/OMIT (" SYNTAX-STYLES-MFlNU]l.l,)

"" = QOOTATION-MARl<S, VOID-WRITING, OMIT~CONTEN'1', VOID-JT1lUSDICTION, OPI1HON ~ 1 = BRACKBrING-CLOSED-AREA-VOID, OMTT-AREA. COURT-AREA.

( ) = PARENTE£SES = CLOS~D-AREA-vom, OMIT-CONTEXT/CON'rENT.

: NC = NO-CONTRACT-WORD = : VOIO-WORD, NO, NE(;l\T.IV!il, AILING, CQRR1JPT ,l!'lCTITIQlJS, ILLDSION, NEGM'IVE-CONDITION WITFfOlJT ]I. PE!1U'ORMANC.E!, FOR THR VOID OF A FP.CT.

: AILING = FOR THE CORRUPTION FROM THE ORIGIN/BEGINNING/START_.

E'OR THE PREF_L.X*-MEANING OF 'I'HE NQ-M-Ej1\.NING .1:S IH'1'll 'I'RE VCl1.TTION OF THill ROO'l'WO)'Ul-CANCELLINGMEANlNG OF THE ~ OR WITH THE NQ-CONTBAC'l'-MEANIN.G OR AIL.INS = CORRUPTIONWTTH ""TEE. BEGTIilNING or A.N ACT.

= E.QUAL-PICT\JRGRAM

FOR ANY WORD-STAR"TING-wIT1i: A, I., I, 0, 0, Wri'R ANY FOLLOWING-TWO-CONSONANTS ARE WITf! THE CLAIM AS A NO-CQNTRACT-MEJUUNG-WORD: vQJTI-WOl'lO, NO, NEGATIVE, J,ILING, CORRUPT, nC'I'l.TIDUS, TLLUSION, NEGATIVE-CQNDITlQN OF~~T WTTilOllT A FERFORMAN~, FnR ~ VOID O~ A FACT.

FOR THE WORD; RESPONDENT ~ 'RE=P.REFIX"-VOill-N'CW-'I'TMt;-FAC'l', SRoND~COMMUNlCATE, EN:'I'~SI.TI"FTX"-VOIDNOW-TIMR-FACT, FOR 1\L1. COMMUNTCP.TlONS OF THE COORT ARE wr.rl-l '1.'fTE FIC'J'IQlSIAL.-SYNT1\X-MODIE'ICATION OF A VOID-SENTENCE-S'I'Rt)CTORE WITH THE VOIU-CONTRACT,

6'OR 'rHE -WORD: ORDER = OR=MO. DER-.9ITFFIX"-1?l'1CT, AS THE 9IORD.-TEXT-SYNTAX ARE WITf:I THE WR.l.T..LNGCIJUM OF' 'l']{l"'; AlLING-WOl1b-MODIFIC.:B.'I'IQN"-SYN'T'AX. OF THE ADVERB»VERBS-SYN'rAX--PBRASES,

PRONOON<<ADVE.RB»VERBS- SYNTAX -PHBASE\S, PRONOUN<<ADVERB»ADJEC!r:rVE»PRONOON- S'iNT:8X. -PHRASE,

.ADVERB»ADJECTIVE»PRONOtJN-SYNTlIX - PHRASE AND lIDJ.EC.'I!IVE» PRONOlJN -.3 Yl\ITAX ·EHBASE.S OF THE

FQElEIGN-AILING-FIC'l'IONM.-SYN'!AX-LANGOAaas WTTB 'J'rtli'. All ING-VOIO-WmrEl-SYN'i'AX-MEi\Ni..NGS BY THE

V~~SALEES'-VESSEL-PA~ERS.

: TERM-WORDING: "THE rACT" = "ADVERB-VERB -SYNTru!.._1I ",vor D-FAC'I' -MEAN ING = VERB- neTI ON- Iil'U\UD- SYNTAX : 'rE"RM-WOROING: "THE LAW" - "lWVSRB-VE'<EU3-SYNTAX "=VOID- E'8.C"Ii-MEANING = VERB-FICTIQN-FRAUO-SYNTAX (' )=FOR THE I?M'l'-.T.IME.-'I'ENSE-.PREYIX-SWFIX" AND WITH THE FUTURE:-TIME-TENSE-I'REFIX .... /SIT"FFIX* ARE WITH THE CLAIM or THE VOID-t~OW-TlME. WITH 1\ vOto-CONTRACT-VOLITION BY AN AlTTHOR.

FOR THE OPERA');'IONA.L-MM'J[-ORDER OF THE OPE RAT TONS : E'ARENTHESE ( ), MOL~'IPLY lX), DIVIDE (/) I SUBTBACT (-), ATID1TTON"(i), DIRECTION OF THE OPERATION !J1\OM 'l'HE LEFT-TO-RIGH'f.

FOR ~ SPECIFIC-FAC~ OF A FAC~ IS W~ A CLAIM OF A ONE-FACT.

FOR THE COPYRIGHT/cOPYCLArM-DATE-4-APRrL-2000/~12~MARCE~2Q09 BY TKE David-Wynn; Mill~,; P~NIPOTENTIARYJUDGE I'JF THESE ~ITY-STZI.'J'_ES-COllEOF.A'ITON-VES!lELS,

If. f]__, '"L \ 3. 4-

rN THE COURT 0 ' APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA3112009 T2009) NZCA 130

THE QUE.EN

v

SHANE CHARLES WENZ 1 L

4-

Hearing: ~.C. 18 March 2009

4

Court: \I,e. O'Regan, Robertson and Arnold JJ

4-

Counsel: V,C. J N Bioleni for Appellant

N Till QC. C J Curran and A Butler for Crown

4-

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.

:VO I O-CONT I NUANCE I (V,C", )

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE.

No 4 \' '2.

~SONS OF THE COURT ~vo'O- -,l. (Given by Robertson J)

R V WENZEL CA A3 112009 [8 April 2009]

.:SYNI8X~COMMUNICA]ON:WOBD-KEY: 1 =ADVERS

2=VERB

3 = ADJECTIVE 4= PRONOUN

a = FAST·TIME-TENSE

9 = FUTURE·TIME·TiNSE a = CONJUNCTION

DPV =DANGLlNG·pARIICIPLE.VESij

!...lo<;

1'l1 trod uctlon

-

\\ L . tJ'O - I

\j. \ IJO 'L 1, . 0 \J" .

[ I ] The ~ell an Ii M r Wenzel, ~lIld aneth er ("X VZ") w hose name h as been

suppressed, are awaiting trial on an indictment which has 36 CO~lLS:

4\ !. 3 "6

• Using a document dishonestly - 17 against MJ' Wenzel only

~.L.

Lot 'L \.,J'l.1'''''' l 1 "1 4-

• U ing a document to defraud ~ 2 against Mr Wenzel only

_..

\\.L . .'tr \"'t.. ~,',]..~ 2

• Obtaining by mceptLon - 16 ~gall1S1 both 'Aicusect

-- ,_-! ....--. -

\),(,.

Cf I :1 \ 31 ft-

• Failing to produce d cuments - I against Mr Wenzel only.

"Jj L. .

I rJII'7,.. I 'L \ 'L! "'L \ -z, 't I "S 3

[2J At issue on this appeal i an order made on 9 January 2009 by Di .trict Court

"> '1-

Judge Wade under s 361D of the Crime Act 1961 that there should be a Judge alone

I

trial.

\l.l, .

t -z.. \ 2- '1 3: '" 4- I

[3] That ection, which carne int force on 25 December lO~g, enables the

~ '2-, 1·1l ",,:3 4- r 3 '1 . '" . . •

prosecution to apply for a Judge alone trial, an ability which hitherto had been

- -

available only to an accused,

~ i:

[4J .~ ,I ?- I 3 1 . s , 1'10 9-. '+ 11, d ~1 3 1 .:tftb

AS it LS a new egislative prov, ion, we lave ealt contemporaneous y WI.

\"""0'2. (I \ '2-,OP~r+- \ . I11"Z.- .t W ~ leave to ~eal and the merits, Thls .IS the first time s 361 D has been considered by

thjls C5tlIt~P\l inc'e the provision came Into force, the High Court has cOl1sidere;one, application under s 361 D (R I' F CRJ 2007-092-1 132 H AK 20 February 2009) and one under its companion provision, s 361E which provides for judge alone trials in Cases of juror intimidation (R v Pritchard Rl 200H-020-002JH7 He NAP 23 February 2009), In R 11 F, Rodney l-lansen.T noted the Law Commission's a sessment that s 361 0 w uld hay particular application to cases involving fraud or complex evidenc ,

\} .L . Ij. ~. 11\101(. \lC~ 01"0'1.

[5J In Pritchard, Dobson J observed that there 15 no guidance in 'the Crime Act on how s 361 E is intended to be balanced against 51 24(e) ~f tl1 Nlw ZeJ'and SnJ bf RiJ'ts A~ 1990 ("NZBORA"), which. provide tha: ~YvrYQ!lJLchar=edR. \:lth_m~

:SYNTAX-CQMMUNICATlQ~·FlQ~tY-KEY.

; V 0 I 0 - CON TIN U A NeE . ~: C~~~RB

( V . C .) . 3 :cADJECTIVE

=2-SPACING-SYNTAX- 4= PRONOUN

R U L E " 8 = PAST- TIME· TENSE

9= FUTURE-TIME-TiNSE 0= CONJUNCTION

DPV = QANGLING-PABTICIPLE-YEBB

offence the penally for which is or include three or more months' irnpri onment has the right to elect trial by jury, The Judge noted that. by virtue of s 4 or ZBORA s 361£ must prevail over 5 24(e) orNZBORA if they conflict, btu said:

,\ c .

\I. If I.

[5] Intuitively. however. the derogation from fundamental righLs such as

those in s 24 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sit uld only pCCUI when the Court Is well satisfied that uch der galion is warranted. In the context of New Zealand society and the balanced administration of the crimi nal law, it 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 depositions hearing

- --

took place over eleven days during July and August 2007 and both men were committed for trial

\1. i . I.:!. t-I'" 4 I J<.IO 3 S c. 4-

[7] The Solicitor-General's indicrm .01 was presemed on 9 October 2007.

- --

~.ll

[8J OI..L 0 4 I:i. • '!.. ~. I ,:t X d N·lolffit,. n 2 November 2008, at a pre-trial hearing, the enous Frau 0' Ice

-

("SFO") as prosecutor informed the Court that if would be applying for n Judge

alone trial under a new tatutory provision (s 361 D) whlch would corne into Iorce on 25 December 2008. n 27 November 2008 th SFOfiled an application for trial by Judge alone together with a supporting affidavit.

\! L. Opv

, . 1. 4. I -z.. rul "2. I ~ c,.. I '2.:.:-- 'tI ,I

[9] Judge Wade, who has ~ays had the carnage of the file, call5' lor

.:5. I + 4- t- d~I'f.j'I:1 .. l,A1

submissions from the partres by 24 December 2008 and alia ated a hearing f'ol' the

rJ<> 3 - -

~lication o~ 9 Jamtary 2009. The SFO riled further material in support of its

application on 7 January 2009.

~.L, - of"

I ;. t.. I l....?",,.o 3 g t,. , 3 tp '" 0 'B

[JO] At the conclusion of that hearmg, h'e ordereo trial By Judge aloneand T111~

1.. t 'l.. \ '!> tlo 40' 3 f t....- -4- -

that tHe trial would go ~ead as ,cheduL~ on 9 February 2009, HI? indicated that

reasons would follow, XYZ has been content throughout to ahid the decision of the Court.

\} . t. L'\I .~- .1

3, .~ ,.... -"?,/'14 ,I. 1'1'" ~S I 'Z. I z,

[! I] Mr 810 letti (for Mr W cnze 1) I mmediatel y advi sed lba t there wou ld be an

rJ..o ~ 1- . \ rvo"Z. 9flL l 7_ -;-j' ..,.. 1:-

appeal against the Qrder. ThL· was lodged 011 I Janliary. There was a resp use by

- - - ,- ;SYNTAX-COMMUNlQATION .. WOBP-KEY:

: V 0 I 0 - CON TIN U A NeE , 1 = ADVERB

( V , C ; ). :2 = VERB

: Z - SPA C I N G - S Y 'N T A X - 3 = ADJECTIVE

R U L E 4 = PRONOUN

, 8 = PAST-TIME-TENSE

9 = FUTURE-TIME-TiNSE 0= CONJUNCTION

DPV = DANGLlNG·PART\CIPLE.VEBB

the SFO au 27 January 2009. basically arguing that leave to appeal should not be granted.

\} ,c..

. I "'2- I 1. 4..,. tJa I 8"' '2.. 2.,:z.

[12] This Court, by Miiinte of 28 January 2009, ~vise.f1 there would be a hearing

I JA If. 0 tl .. I r . I

a to leave and re men s tmu taneou ly, At that stage reasons Lor JUC gment were

not available and without them the appeal Gould not be advanced. The Minute noted that if the prosecutor wished to bold its 9 february 2009 trial date, the parties could ll;yee to then: being a jury trial but iu the absence or consent, a postponement or the trial was inevitable as this Court needed to consider issues arising Linder the new legislative provision.

\] ,c. .

, l '1- :) '1 t,. t.; ~~ 4. \ J "3 j ,I

[13) A Minute of Judge Wade dined 30 January 2009 ~cords that Mr Werize] was

4- I NO 3, t (. .'1 J FO :1. I.t. r • l . "" '''~ 2.. . \ 2.

by then 2QPose] 'to the tnal ~ceed.ing with a JUry Without the ~eru being heard.

~ "'1- • t. . 'l..-. \.i~ 1. t,. .

That stance JS difficult to understand. However, eventually all parties agreed that

~

there had to be an adjournment pending the appeal The trial was rescheduled tor

Monday 17 August 2009. Reasons for judgment were delivered on 4 February 2009. \j,l...

\ -z_ 1 ~.'1.,

The grounds 01 appeal

-

~.l,..

[14]

"l- \ 'L':1

The submissions on behalf of Mr Wenzel' were ornewhat diffuse, but

invol ved challenges Touted ill q uesticns II f: \I,l.. •

J .) .

• unswctl.on;

\J~~.

~ 4

• ~all1,ess;

\\. • , -z, \ -z.. G

• The effect of NZBOI{A: and ".(...

'J i" I 1-

• A wrongful exerci "C of discretion,

\ 1..

The Iegislatiun

V·L•

'+ 4. \ 3:J ~t:l1 ~ a I .3

[15] Section 4 of the Crimes Amendment let (No 2) 2008 inserted the new

4. 0 If \ ~ '"f. l) 1101""2. Lt--

5S 361 D and. 36 IE into the Crimes Act 1961 and, as relevant, provides:

oJ • c. ;SYN'@-COMrvtONICATION-WOBD-KEY:

1 = ADVERB 2=VERB

3 == ADJECTIVE 4= PRONOUN

8 = PAST-TIME-TENSE

9 _ FUTURE-TIME- riNSE 0:.: CONJUNCTION

DPV - QANGLlNG-PARTICIPLE-VERa

;VOID-CONTINUANCE, ( V . C . )

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE.

4

;VD I O-CONT I NUANCE. ( V. C . )

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE,

o tJ· f4.S

New sections 36 LD and 361E inserted

-

\I. , I¥I 1

The following. ctions are inserted after ection 361 C:

\I.t.. -- -

361D .fudge may order trial without jury in certaln cases that are. likely to "be long and complex

J.l.. \ 30 J 1 U ~\Jo'O - -!J

(1) This section 4Q!ies only ,O'.~ pe;Son (Ole accused person)

who is committed for trial for an offence that is nol-

\1. • a)

I ~OZ- t ~_I :3 ,.. .1 an ofIe.nt;le for whi 11 the rnaxtmum penally IS

~ ..-- '3 ,.:;J l'~ 0,. f 14

unprtsonrueru tor Ire or unpnsoument or . years

or more; r

1",.'- I.-l. CI

an ~Tfence of attemptjng or conspiring to commit or

of being a rartYLo th~ commission of, or of being an accessory after the fact to, an [fence referred La in paragraph (a),

\ll..

(2) The Judge may, on a written application for the purpose made by the prosecutor to the Judge. and served on the accused person before the accused J)erson is given in charge to the jury, order that the accused person be tried for the offence before the Judge without a jury.

" . 4-

(3) However, the lodge may make an order under subsection (2)

only if the prosecution and the accused person have been given an opportunity to be beard in relation LO the application, and following such hearing, the Judge is satisfied-

\).l.. I "d 3 tJil ~u ~ u<A4:l~ G

(a) IJfal all E.fIsooable lmlceduraJ 2lder (if any). and aJI

oilier reasonable arrangements (if any), to facilitate the shortening of the trial, .have been made, but the duration of the trial still seems likely to exceed 20 days: and

4 .L.. I. "l ~ I ~ r!!'

thar, ttl the circumstances of the cas" the accused

per on's right to trial by Jury is outweighed by the likelihood that potentia I jurors will Dot be able: to perform their duties effectively,

\I, t, I..-z. , 6 '2, vel',} J" ..

(4) .!J1 con i9;ering, for lhe PUllJ~S bf ~ubsecljon (3)(b), the eiroumstarfces or th~ c1L4'Clhe Judge must lake into account the following matters:

\I. t. " (} . I tlo '2... l:l.

(a) thF nulme" and nature of I~e ffences with which

the ~CCl1S~ person is charg~: --

\I .c , \ 31 ."2... I z, I ~. -z.. Ii"

(b) the nature otrthe issues likely to!:ie involved:

11'(. I "L :-z_ I 1·' 1-;: z.8

(c) tb~ volume of evidence Ilkely to be presenter1'

.:- :7 V,t.·

(d) the imposition on potential jurors of sitting for the

likely duration of the trial:

:SYNTAX-CQMMUNICATION.WORD-KEY: 1 = ADVERB

2=VERB

3 = ADJECTIVE 4=PRONOUN

8 = PASFTIME-IENSE

9": FUTURE-TIME-TENSE 0= CONJUNCTION

DPV - QANGLING-PARTICIPLE-VERB

(b)

(e) . any ulher mailers the Judge considers relevant.

~ ~. .

(5) If tJe ~sel person is one of? o~ more persons to be tried together, all of them must be tried before a Judge with a jury unless an order under subsection (2) for all of them to be tried by a Judge wi thout a jury is appl led for and made.

"c.. •

(6) This section does not limit section 36 LB or J6 J C or 36,1 E..

(6) This section applies in respect of an accused person only if-

V,~,

(a) the accused person is commhted for trial on or after the dale on which this section comes inlo force; or

\t. (. .

(b) the accused person is committed for trial before the date on which thrsseeticn comes into force and the trial has not commented before that date.

"V.C,.. . '_,\.jl., . ..,-:J

[! 6] These new provrsicns carne into force on 2,:,) December 2008, SIX months

'. if.. \ , " [,. \ .3 ' 1w ~Ij(l\r,)-l- rJ".! . 3

from the date thai S 4 or the Crifhes Amenill11ent Act (No 2) 2008 IEgelv;1LRoyal

, 'to ~\lOU)~

Assent (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 361 D of the Crimes Act was not In force until

lL. -\ rJ{I 1. 5..~l.f . Ii-. dJ .

25 December 2008, ~he ~!icali{)n files on 27 November 200~ and the suppornng

documentation filed prior to the new provisions coming into Force were, in law nullities.

~.C

~ . '\ ..... j.. fJo l,. .:I Ir... 0

ThIS IS an l1nSlJstamab.le~ment. Mr Wenzel and theco-accused have been

liS]

awaiting trial for over two years. There Was a ten-week time slot available between tile provision coming into force and the trial date in February 2009. Puttingto one side the date on which the SFO' application was filed, clearly there was jurisdiction to make the order.

\J.t..

;3 ~ 0

[19] Mr Wenzel and XYZ have been committed for trial for offences for which

the maximum 'penalty was seven years. There were no charges involving a maximum penalty of life imprisonment of 14 years or longer. which would have

precluded the application of the section.

:VOID-CONTINUANCE, (V, C . ) :2-SPACING~SYNTAX· RULE,

. :§YNTAX-COMMUNICAl1QN-WORO-KEY: 1 = ADVERB

2=:VERB

3 = ADJECTIVE 4=PAONOUN

8:: EAST-TIME~IENSe

9 =EUTUBe~TIME-TiNSE 0= OONJUNCTION

DPV·;:l DANGL.ING~PABIICIPLE-YERe

o","v

~.. '2-- \ 'Z. I '2,., it 1 s (.t ( JIl'> '2..... .:- 0

[20J Written applica ion. fQr"trial by Judge .alone was made 'By the prosecutor and

( 11 '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 the new section came into force, but the new trial had not commenced (s 4(6)(b Crimes Amendment Act (No 2) 2008). The. parties were given an opportunity to be heard in relation to tile application (as required by s 361D(3)). The eclion.was in force at the time that Judge Wade made his order. 10 other words, all the statutory requirements for its being engaged existed.

[21 ]

'< \.'1 I l I+. , N0 -a, ~

As to die filing of the ~cation, all that occurred was the simple expedient

f having it filed early. This allowed everyone involved to consider their positions and assisted 111 having the application adjudicated upon within the short tirneframe available. Early warning in respect of the application was to everyone '5 advantage. There was nothing unlawful in what occurred,

[22] ks ~t tra~pjr_lg because of an exercise of appe-al rights, the best laid plan or mice and men did not come to fruiti n and the trial slot had L be vacated. There wa • 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,,0 V 01 j)

¥ \ N ~:_( 3: It., \. "l.. - /.;. \ ~ t\'_

[23J Although not ..thl'em~5i [6 by counsel, we have conslde~ New Zealand

Employers Federation v National Union of' Public Employ;;;; [_002] 2 NZLR 54, where this Court considered the cope of s II of the Interpretation Act 1999. Section J 1 provides for the exercise of powers onferred by enactment before the enactment enters into force in certain circum lances. The NZEF case involved the registration of a union under the 'mployment Relation Act 2000 t efore the Act was in force. The Court considered whether the registration had been "necessary or desirable to bring, or in connection with bringing" the enactment into operation in terms of s 11 (2). Holding that 11 did not authorise .registrarion of a union before the Act came into force because registration involved the ubstantive provisions of the Act, Richardson P for the majority said that s II applied to teps required to facilitate procedural not substantive, changeover from the old to the new legislation.

: V 0 I 0 - CON TIN U A NeE l ;S;~"?vE~~MMUNICATlQN-WOBD-KEY:

( V , C , ) 2 = VERB

~ Z - SPA C I N G - S Y N T A X - 3 = ADJECTIVE

RULE, 4= PRONOUN

B = pAST- TIME.·TENSE

9 = EUTlJRE-TIME .. TiNSE 0;:: CONJUNCTION

DPV = DANGUNG-eARTICIPLE-VERB

[24]

I'J. 4- \ "L1' \"t.- t:7 ; J ~~

111e COLl!t in NZEF was cliyicis_Q, with Keith and Blanchard J.I c!!gsenting.

They considered that s 11 (unlike its predecessor.: 12 of the Acts lnterpretation Act 1908) distinguishes between the coming into force of legislation and the bringing of it into operation. Keith J said that:

j.e... ..

[68] The change, consistently with the readinggiven to the old provision and its equivalents, clarifies the purpo e of helping give fuller substantive effect to the legislation by enabling the making of necessary nr desirable provision which is effective right from the time the leglslatiou comes into force ... 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 majority view ill the NZEF case, nothing ;JawfuJ ~urr~ in

this case. The s 3610 application was procedural, and its grant by Judge Wade was administrative directed to the efficient disposal of an inevitable issue. The order cannot, in 'that sense, be said to fall int the "substantive" zone envisaged by the NZEF majority. The new section was 10 effect before the trial commenced and Judge Wade's order was a procedural means of expediting what could otherwise have arisen in a foreshortened timeframe during the vacation.

\J,t.

tJ<l ~

Unfalrness

--'

~,(._.

[26] M·:' B' 1"3, "'b' .t,.!"G. \ drJ+ 1,. h 1. .1"2._ LtJ.. l' z, I,"

r 10 ern su nuts tnat a' a eposiuon earmg 1." part of t le continuum 0

criminal tr~cedure for any iti"dictable ~foanatiOtl, it is fundamentally unfair to permit a change in the system to occur in the course of a particular trial,

'~,t. ~~

. . 4 . \ "'2.. I "t 40' "L i<J"'. --z._~:""

[27] That lSI however preci ely what U1C words of the tarute provide for (s

4(6)(b) Crimes Amendment Act No 2) 200st It is not f r a cow-l in -;e absence of ambiguity or uncertainty, to intrude its view as to a policy matter which has been clearly articulated by Parliament.

~,c..

[28] Mr Bioletti's concern in this regard also needs to be viewed in light of what did happen at the deposition hearing. In his reasons for decision Judge Wade described it thus:

~.c.,

:VO I O-CONT I NUANCE. 1 (V .c. )

:Z-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE.

[1 I J '" Mr Wenzel, at the depositions bearing, refused to consent to lilly brief of evidence at all being the subject of "hand-up". Partly as a result, the depcsitions bearing ran for a total of I I days, during whicb it was only possible for 1 t of the 41 prosecution witnesses. to give evidence. I had before me affidavit evidence from MS D.!lJAA a Serious Fr£rud Office

: YN ~QQMMUNICATIQN.WORP-KEY;

1 = ADVERB

2=VERB

3 = ADJECTIVE 4= PRONOUN

8 = PAST-TIME-TENSE

9 = FUTURE· TIME· TENSE 0= CONJUNCTION

DPV ~ DANGLlNG.PARTICIPLE-YERB

investigator, that even purely formal evidence (such lH! thai by bank officers merely producing doeu rnentaryex h lb i ts) could nul bit agreed, .. ,

~.L. . "L"2.... .. ~

[29i1 \ f'I' ··~l I b 1\ 'l~' ·4--h' ~·l btl' iblicati

. J An accuseocan .. eha ve .. ikeU11S if Ley WI. S r, . u t nere 1 s no 0 lJ gation at a

. ,-

depositions hearing to call aJ1 evidence which may be led at trial. TIle purpose of depositions is to determine whether there is a prima. facie case. What is required is evidence adequate to establish a prima facie case.and there is no infringement of a defendant's legal right just because some, rather than all, of the available evidence is sufficient for the "purpose.

\l,e .

. . I -zJ,,.,,~

[30] There was no unfairness.

" (. .

4

NZBORA

, ~,L

[31 J Mr Bioletti made an impassioned plea about the consequences 0 f taking away an accused person '5 right to trial by jury. 1-1 e made particular reference to statements of the importance of the right as recognised in other jurisdictions (R v Sherratt [1991] t SCR ?09 (Supreme Court of Canada) and S )I Coetzee (1997) 3 SA 527 (Co nsti tu tiona 1 Court of South Africa)). A similar philosophy permeates the jurisprudence in our country.

\\,('.

5 . it- .. f'Qf I ., "'" -z, 3 . I G.. \.! ~ . \ .. 3 . ~ ,

[32] Mr Bioletti responsIbly ~cept~ that there wa-s no obvIOUS ambiguity In Ole

lan~age'1of s 361 D which would enable the Court, under s 6 of the NZBORA. to interpret the section consistently with 5 24(e). Counsel still submitted that the approach of the Supreme Court in Hansen ]I R [2007] NZSC 7 probably required a ss Sand 6 assessment.

\\.(,.'4-\1'r..L.P"~ crroH"...,.,IQ •

.')~-;t 1'J!I;l ~ 0 It .... .

[33] A Hansen assessment under 55 4, 5 and 6 of NZBORA will be a rather non-

. --

productive exercise where there is a dear and unambiguous legislative direction, But, as is required by Hansen, we briefly consider whether 5361 D is justified in

:VOID-CONT1NUANCE, ( V , C , ) :Z-SPAC1NG.SYNTAXRULE,

teTlJ1S of's 5 of NZBORA.

~.,(...,

4 .. rJ..t '1..- \ . 'l ".. ~ 1.'2- \. . z. I'~ 1

[34] Section 5 requires that the nghts 1Il NZBOM may be subject only to such

• '" \ ""Z- I-}.II 3..., 3. 8' L. \2.:::.-'" 0 . ..

hmlts as may tie demonslrably justified ili a free and democratic society. The

"':SYNT8X-CQMMUN!CAT[Q~-WORD·KEY: 1 = ADVERB

2=VERB

3= ADJECTiVE .4= PRONOUN

B == P8SFTlME-I!;NSE

9 == FUTUBE·lIME-liNSE o = GONJUN CTION

DPV = DANGLING-PARl"lG.IPlE-VERB

template fur this "demonstrable justification' was articulated by the Canadian Supreme Court in R v Oakes [1986] 1 CR 103.

~.C'

~.'" ~ .. ' '3! ~'j1"t 0 We L 1,.... \"l'LI

[35] \ We consider that the limit place_Q by s 361 D and E on the right to trial by

. "V b'" ':ton riel II . ' . '11' 'aJ h

JUry can e jusrr e orma Y In asS case tbe rown WI provide mateo' to tt

- .

qOUl1 to establish that the relevant limitation 0[1 the right is "demonstrably justified' . In the present case however, s 361D was enacted after the Law Commission had carried out a research project into jurie , and it and s 361 were among the changes that the Commi ion recommended: see New Zealand Law Commission Juries in Criminal Trials (NZLC R69 200 I, ch 3). For the reasons given by the Commission, we consider that the limit placed by those suctions on the right to trial by jury can be justified. The scope of s 3610 is by its terms confined in application and requires a judicial assessment of the circumstances that the prosecution contends bring the case within the section. Section 361D i dire ted at promoting Iair trial. outcomes, which could be compromised if a jury were presented with-highly complex evidence that it could not reasonably be expected to understand sa as to he ab.le (0 assess and evaluate,

~.t...

[36] We are atisfied. that 3610 is justified in terms of s 5 and we do not sec bow there COLLld sensibly be any Interpretation under 5 6 of the words used by Parliament which would lessen the impact of the balancing exercise.

\I. . roo.I

lj 1 2. I L~

[37] At the hearing before us, it emerged that toe crux of the appellant's case was

that, as under s 24(e) of NZBORA trial by jury i an absolute right in cases where the penalty is Imprisonment of three months or more, the availability to the right ha an increasing intensity according to the length. of the effective sentence likely to be imposed upon conviction. That i the longer the probable effective term of imprisonment, the more important the right to trial by jury. We consider thi thesis below.

\I, .

\ I'l- 'Z..- I "L

The exercise of dlseretlon

, -

\1(,

[38] The fa ctual circumstances 'g_i ving ri: e to the charges were encapsulated by

Judge Wade as follows:

;SYNrAX-CQMMUNICATION-WOBD-KEY: 1 = ADVERB

2c::VERB

3 = ADJECTIVE 4= PRONOUN

8 = PASFTIME- TENSE

9 = FUTURE-TIME-riNSE 0= CONJUNCTION

DPV = DANGLING-PARTICIPLE-VERB

:VOID-CONTINUANCE. ( V , C . )

~2-SPACJNS-SYNTAX-

R UL E I '

[7J The offences involve alleged complex mortgage frauds, with multiple transactions and layerswithin transactions, spread over some I g separate properties, with what has been described asa sophisticated modus operanditelating to the alleged offending. It ls the prosecution case that, in many instances, properties were being purchased by entities controlled by Mr Wenzel and then sold by that entity ['0 another person who worked for Mr Wenzel, orwas otherwise closely associated with him. These purchasers were then a:,~ked by Mr Wenzel to sign documents and enter agreements, including [Dan applications, which they knew little about and, in many cases, where loaas were arranged there were same day payments of borrowed funds back to the original vendor. The volume of evidence is likely to be large, with some 41 prosecnti on witnesses, Six of those witnesses' briefs of evidence exceed 20 pages and two 0.[ them exceed 50 pages. The 41 prosecution witnesses are made up of eight borrowers OT purchasers, four real estate agents, six employees of businesses run by Mr Wenzel. five mortgage brokers, I I lenders' representatives, a Pollee document examiner, three lawyers, One legal executive and two Serious Fraud Office in vestiga tors.

\l.l.

[39] Mr Biolerti did not engage 'in detail with the particular issues which are

required to be taken into account by the Judge under s 361D(3) and (4)..

~,1.. ,

[40]

L. .\2. b' However.he submitted:

\j. !.,...

[14J An actual prison sentence or seven years was a Likely consequence of conviction, this is an insunnouutabie and overwhelming factor against the removal of thenght to Jury trial in this case. Thisfactor is like Jabba the Hutt sitting all the end of the seesaw. Somethingextraordinary would be required to justify the removal of the right 10 jurytrial in a case involving this heavy porentialloss of liberty and this case is not extraordinary.

[15] Ai Ihe end or the day, i tis tl case ofa lleged false pretences, in the old.parlance, Q'Sto whether deposits said to be paid were not paid andincome said to beearned W'aSOOt earned. At the end ofa trial, distilled to its essence with the humbug stripped away, the trial Judge having determined questions of law which is what invariably occurs, this case would be rairl.y straight forward for ajury to determine,

\j,LI .: o\dO\~'-

... \. 1: ~·5·.·,."", .

[4 t] He su bseqiientty jeferred to "the greater the potential loss of liberty. the

- - 8

hi h lhe l 1 f .. al '. ~dv.°d l "rl

igner t e reve _ 0 constitu tional protecno D require; ' an. not~:

~,c. .

[17J ... the greater need for public validation of verdicts through the jury system and public participation ln the criminal justice system, the greater Deed JOt protectiem against arbitrary state power, the greater need fnr the unconstrained and constitutionalright of a jury to bring in a verdict, the greater need far the impartiality of the fact de ten nin er, the public endorsement of decisions, the democratic right of people to serve as jurors, the larger number of people on a jury, and tbe requirement of practical unauimity,

:VOIO-CONTINUANCE, ( V , C ; )

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXR UL E ,

,;SYNTAX=QOMMUNICAIION-W06P_KEY:

1 ==ADVEFIB .

2 = VERB

:3 = ADJECTIVE 4= PRONOUN

8 == PAST-TIME-TENSE

e == fUTUR-E-TIME-IENSE 0== CONJUNCTION

DPV = DANGUNG-PARlJ'CIPLE_YERB

l '1- l lAo '1. 8

[42] In conclusion he submitted:

\.J.L. --

[18] The greater the pctential loss of liberty the more lrnportant these

things are and the fact that the particular case may be highly suited for practical adrninistrative purposes to a judge alone trial cannot outweigh the paramountcy of Ute right to jury trial where lengthy prison terms 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 number of 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 multiple

transactions and layers wi thin transac [ions spread over I H properti es wi th a sophisticated modus operandi to the offending".

~.

lJ. \'i'" 'l.~, . .

[44] Couhsel n te.g that, al the time Judge Wade undert ok thi assessment. he

bad already he~d a s 347 appli arion in respect of XYZ and had access to tile notes of evidence from the very lengthy depositions hearing 0 was in a good position to evaluate the balance required.

~.L. .

'+ I ~ ~ 3 ~ ,.... 1, ~ q"-t I'l_ .. ",0 1 7

[45] Turning to the ~ues spec.i1kal1y~qdrrt:d to be taken rnto ~collnl under

1361D(4), the respondent's submissions noted: ---.

\I. .

The briefs of six of the prosecution witnesses exceed 20 page. and two exceed 50 pages. The 41 prosecution witnesses are made up or the

following: '

,

7 borrowers/purchasers

•

4 real estate agen ts

•

6 employees of business run by Mr Wenzel

5 mortgage brokers

I J. lender representatives

L police document examiner

3 lawyers and I legal executive

2 SFO officers

[46]

\ fJl "'L.. & _ I I ~ I . 3. 4. .

Coun eJ L!J)derlmsrJ_ the fact that, at the depositions hearing, all witnesser

were required to give oral evidence.

\: VO I O-Co NT I NUAN CE, ( V . C , )

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXR Ul E ,

Tf1C! trial i. set down for ten weeks. ;SYNTAX-COMMUNICATION-WORD-KEY: 1 ""ADVERB

2=VERB

3 = ADJECTIVE 4= PRONOUN

8= PAST-TIME-TENSE

9;:: FUTURE-TIME-TiNSE 0;:: CONJUNCTION

DPV = DANGLING-PARTICIPLE-VERB

[47] Judge Wade referred to languageproblems for prospective jurors in the Mantikau District COWl. Wo are told that this is ue was not raised by either counsel. and it is not a matter of relevance in. the evaluative exercise we have undertaken,

~.(, v

\ f.t<! '> > 4- I '2.~

[48J The ~pondelJt submit: that tbe size, scope and complexity of the case

demonstrate a likelihood tha; potentia] jurors would not be able to perform their duties effectively. This undermines both the private and public value of a jury right, and.makes this case a proper candidate for a judge-alone trial under s 361D.

tL.

[49J Judie wiae concTod~d:

\l,c..

[31] ... 1 am satisfied that the Serious Fraud Offl,cc is entirely correct when they submit that it is difficult to envisage a trial more suited to the exercise of my statutory discretion than a omplex alleged fraud trial such as this.

\J.£... \ z,

[50] We agree.

\I,t.

[5 I] There is nothing which suggests that the Judge €21erclsedhis discretion on a

wrong principle took into account irrelevant ccnsideratious or failed to weigh the statutory requirement or other matters relevant to the exercise of that di cretion, We are not persuaded that the language i sue was seriously influential,

~.L [52]

\ '2... I ''2,..- I ~ .. S f>lP4 ~

We reject the sliding scale approach advocated.

- --

It add

nothing to, nor

detracts anything from, our conclusion at [35], above, that s 361 D is an unambiguous and justified dero gatinn from s 24( e). That bci ng the case, s 361 D mu st be read .i n i ts terms. There is no provision in that section for the application of a higher stringency standard if the penalty is likely to be great. The evaluative criteria for the Judge do not go beyond tho e provided for in the section.

~. (..

[53] The right to trial by jury affirmed in NZBORA L an absolute. lts application and availability arise from the potential for more than three months' imprisonment. However Parliament 11a5 decided tpat in some classes of ca e, that right is to be balanced against other identified fac 0 . The probable effective cntence is not one of those and we find JlO basis for introducing that additional mandatory consideration by judicial fiat.

:VOID-CONTINUANCE,

( V , C . ) .

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE.

;SYNTAX.COMMUNICATION.WQRO.KEY: 1-ADVEAB

2 =VEAB

3 = ADJECTIVE 4= PRONOUN

8= PASFTIME·TE;NSE

9 = FUTURE·TJME.TiNSE 0== CONJUNCTION

DPV = DANGLlNG.PARTICIPLE-YEBB

[54J The case bas all the hallmark identified by Parliament a being ufficient to outweigh the advantages which are otherwise obtained by trial by jury.

J .c .

4 , .. 1 2._, z, i Ct! "Z-" ~ 8

[55] Leave to appeal is granted, bur the appeal is dismissed,

- ~ -

: VO I O-CONT I NUANCE I ( V • C , )

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE.

q.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington Serious Fraud Office. Auckland

;SYNTAX-COMMUNrCADON_WORD_KEY' 1 = A DVER.B ..

2,=VERB

3 c:: ADJECTIVE 4>= PRONOUN

e • fAST- WtE- TENSe

e ;;r EUIUBe:rIME- TENSr; 0== CONJUNCTION

OPV == QANGLING-PABTICIPLE_VERB

:SYNTAX~CQMMUNICATION-woBD-Key; 1 = ADVERB

2 = 'VERB

3 == ADJECTIVE, 4=PRONOUN

8 = PAST- TIME-TENSE

9 = FUTUIBE-riME-IENSE o ::CONJUNCTION

4. ( 2_ I /'4'! 2 I D~ = OAN~~G-PABTIC:IPLE-VEBB

IN ,THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

}-Jo, ~ Y-

Additional Materials

~

--

CA3112009

Shane Ch arles WENZELL p THE QUEEN

Appeal against Pre-trial Ruling LJ .c..

~GE:

* ' .

COUNSEL:

WadeDCJ

;VOID-CONTINUANCE. ( V j C , )

:2-SPACING-SYN1AXR UL E j

\ No '2.

·fQr ~eUant ~ IJ-C, '-r fo~ erj()~s Fraud Office

-

U .t: ,

.1 N Bioletti A C Butler

~ 1-'1' 2 ~

INDEX TO CASE

~, .

. 4 l .3, ~.f.- ~II 0- - ..

Minute of Judge Roy Wade (30 January 2009)

0,(.."

~a ~ I 2. \"3 s it- ~va\D'" -J. Keasons for Decision f Judge Roy Wade (4 February 2009)

-

1- .J

4--15

f

4 \ .3 4-

IN T,n DISTRICT COURT AT l't1ANtlK;\lO

ClU 1006..092-014382

~SYNTAX-CQMMUNICATlON·WQBO.KEY; 1 = ADVERB

2 = V EiRB

3 = ADJECTIVE ~

4=PAONOUN

a = PAS,.. TIME-TENSE

9 - FUTURE- TIME-TENSE 0:· CONJUNCTION

DPV ~ OmGLlNG-PARIICIPLE-VERB

r

I

t;pe~s: N TID QC ~d A G B\jltlerr'O~· the SenoU$ FTa1.~d Office

- J Bioil:tti for·MT Wllmt:c! : V 0 I [} - CON TIN U A NeE I

G 06tlic:b for Mt "D" ( V , C . )

;Z-SPlCING-SYNTAXRULE,

!

'Min1t'e~ ~.C. 10 January 2009

4- J ~

MINVTE OB JUDGE ROY W,J,E

o o :::,

I

"L!.ll 'l'hi8 Court C"dnnut hqu: lhematrer pnar tu 9' Peb~ 2DOO, 'bat there arc ~d a~ ptPl1ar~uCllS wby Un 3IPcllkir ISl)ch U t;bis, whu h faaea witll a Sln~ amtl:idmt':nt~shotild ell ~titl~ to ~erei.sc his Appeal rightFi, even tithis ineans a tnAl poStponement.

"(10) Id~t fhat th quc-stiQtl of loave'~J the ll1mtR of the c~hauld be htwd together. TbJ: .R~gi~ai Sb()l~ld tilloenre the ~ pwmble datt aft« the filt' is rt::otivt:d by Ihis Cl1I.ll't Ind r~ sons for judgment oecorM ,8¥tll1abf~

,

• ~

~.

I

• t

i

t I

• ,

1

z

'~YNTAX-CQMMLJNICATION"WORO-KEY: 1 ",ADVERB

2~VERa,

3 ~ ADJECTIVE 4 ",PRONOUN

8 '" PAST·TIME·TENSE

9 ::; FUTURE- TIME-TENSE o Co CONJUNCTION

OPV:= DANGLlNG·PARTICIPLE-VERB

hUe ilUOW11lg fur tun GJ"~l to be pro\iQtd by e!.cb s'idc:, There will be an ora! hcarmg,

"Cl 1j )c~ 1.111I\'olves a new fegistati t: prOvWCl1, ~e rruurer !ihould be hear~ by the ,P~Dt Co'un",

?t( J 3 i;.4- &. J _ I"Z- !',S.

[2J Al ;~ fimtel~han,e oonf~rence, convme_g at 9.1~ am today, Mr BlolettJ

'-I. ,\ 7-\" 7.. \ ,J, :3 . NO 3~ -", 3 tJ- ~ ,

10bk thcpqmt tbatihere 'II ,uld peJunsdlctiQllal p:robletl1ti to th~ ttia] .e;gce&dlng as a

• ;3__' ,'3 4- ' '+ , It. J '- \..J 2.. 1'/.;1 1-10 ~ £.. ,L. '2.. .

Jury utal on9 lebruary as tnl.' maltCr was ncv ~ ,r~etl.Y llW:-o~ 'tlieot111 'Of A'PPeal

o .1 7_·3 fl· I h ,l-- "\ ~ z ('?'3 T - o -&0 ':l, J Ii-.I '2..., ot"v

and It "15 ~1'O'P,nateJht tb-e ~eal to D.d heard and. ~nmn!SJ on ita ments.

Furt:hJmol'O Mr Bioletti suggested. tlla1 it ill .. behove the Serious Fraud Office. hA.vin§ aqued fur a Iudgcalotle td;.a) no t(l)Je;autdrom tlleirpa,mtioo and. n_o, seek [1';\ continue with the ltl1Y trial,

~ <"'1

1 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 case Qf'ti\e Smo,U$ Fiiud Offic'e

..a ~., _4. f ~ ..... 'tt b' • ~ (ld '2... J ?- P~L ,. d .,

uC'[~g mat a tair Ll.J.~ Y jury COli nOt taIm place, r~er .11 was 11 ·ctsmtn.alJ.Ou

that a l\J'dp alane tri 1 would ,be the: mOT-e,pproptlate to.rum. However, it was Illknw~dged: that thfITe ~ pPtentt8.1 jurisdictional problems: unless th«e \~as consent Cilt1 all sides to the tri..u COl1t1n1.linS S a JW'Y trial lOll 51 Feb!'uar,y. The: Serious 'Fr.aud Offiee were c ru::e~ abeut the del",>, if the' tnal c4t1no:t; pT(Joeed as scheduled 1l11d, m.t point ~t ~l~one conferenoe was adjourned tlntll 2.0' pm se thaI both defence counsel cQQlq c~ instnlQtions.

· \,UI "

.\J ", ~ I :s s 84-" '. , .

l4J Wh~ llic matter~~ at 2.00 pm" Mi BUJlettl contfrme:d.he bad reeetved

p~itive inslt'llCtions ~ Mr Wenzel that his client would not seek to rely upon any dela, oc:casioned 0)' a rescheduling of the trial. However, Mt Gotlieb's client did :not consent to t~ d.y'inevitably ocasionetJ b the trial betn ICGchcdulcd.

\.J , c.. 4 I ", '7, 4- , 1..-, ~ ,J. ,'t ,I NfJ_ 3. ' ... ,

[5] In thQs,e ~~tanct::&,tb~= ,_ UflBllllIllW chat the ,.¥propn:necourse of

va ').. I·:' 1.1) 2. \ .J ~ "~ ,. ,iJ. a ~ .

~O[l was to ~~el the mal ~ang_enfs for 9 FtlmiAry and., happily. a subStiMe

I

t:riA1 date can be ~d \\rithoUl too SttbstruJ,tWl ad~lay.

V·L' ~

I ~" 3 W 4: ,l , .1 ,3 It. 4 \ 'Z.. S. 0, N0 Y.

l J 1 d1e:re:fQre d.lri:ctea thliL the: trial date or 9 F~brt1nry be vcatci! and, UlslCad.

:I i f/. ~,1... 1- 1-. , ~ f:R'!_, "1 i, - I

direct~> lhat dl:e trial will comm_ce Oe MC!n&,>r'~;.r7 Aug'tlS.i ne:lt Wit, sn e~tim:ate

1- \.L, "

of 10, We&kS, ba&Cd ('ip U"e ttSSUUlptlo!! maLmo trial wiH thtm be a JUlY trial. As ..

:VOID-CONTINUANCE,

(V,C.) •

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE.

•

i

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

! ,

L

- ..... __ ...

- ..

:SYNTAX_COMMUNICATION-WORD-KEY: i '" ADVERB

2 =VERB

3 =: ADJECTIVE 4",PRONOUN

8 '" PAST-TIME-TENSE

9 = FUTURE-TIME-TENSE 0= CONJUNCTION

DPV = DANGL.INCl-PARTlCIPLE-VERB

:VDID~CONTINUANCEI (V , C " )

:2-SPAC I NG-SYNTAX-

R uL E .

car 2006-092-01+-382

v

-:r .3 (J_

I S8ANE CIlAllLES 'WENZEl.

: r VIP.~ ~ 0 N TIN U A NeE ;A~ :SYNTAX·COMMuNICATION-WORP-KEY:

:2"SPAC/ ' ~,J~rv, 1 = ADVERB

RULE. NG~SYNTAX_ UD" ~~~~~~CTIVE

4= PRONOUN

a = PASFTIME-TENSE

g.= FUTURE-TIMFTiNSE o = CONJ UNCTION

PPV = DANGLlNG-PAATlCIPLE-VEBB

4. 4

H:wing: ". L. Jarma:t:y 20(19

4peartrnces: A C Bu.tler fOll ~ Senous Fraud. Office

- J Bioletti for l\1r W cmzel ItDII in Petsbtl

JlD 4. I \" 1-- ... ~

~.1lS for ~s.ien~ 4 FebNary 2Q09

. . tll) -'t __ I ~; i L ~. '.. LJ .... ~

PASONSfORD.EClSIONOFJJ7~GER· 'WADE OU Ap,tiCAtiODPUOOlaJlt to 5 361]) 01 th~ Crane _4"lft 1961.

--

If ,If- '. . I '2 I tJo '3, 'r \ !I. 3 "e ~ "..

'[lJ on ~ Jm\l.m'Y 2009, I b5rd ae appIicauOh bl' the Senom Fnmd O~~e that

~ forthc~ tri!l Jr JUi: tw~ ~e1lS;dbe by: way of Judga atune tn dQQru'dance with legislation TUI eame mil) f'ozee as .recently as l~st Cbri$trrI!l.S Day. Olvtn that the deoisio.n is ot some sip15CfmCf! lOthe parties, ib Uun it a:ff~ts the .bcousedl1 \ long-~~li£bed tighl £Q ~al by jury .and is', probably, rite first involvmg this

:

•

,

i t

,

t

l

t I I t

I

, • ,

,

r

I

• ,

•

"

;§YNIAX-CQMMUNICATION-WORP-KFC 1 =ADVESB

2:::VEAB

3 = ADJECTIVE 4;;PRONOUN

6 = PAST-liME-TENSE

9 - FUTURE-TIME-IENSE 0' = CONJUNCTION

DPV = DANGlING-PARTlCIPLE-VERB

leBlSia~ i't plainly cieslSl;1ted some reilectiOn and rue p,reparnrion of a c::lteful

resen'ed judFent b~!O;Basiy olJTlolusiOA was 'reaohed. \J (..1

• fJt:I It- :> ~;I ~ '2- \ "- '- ~o I

[2JI Unhappily. ciromnstanees prevenw31lt1y foUOWUlg that course of atUOl1 and 1

q;_ ':~ '1-' . ~ pO '=:- . l . I . >, . ~. I un,_ f)J1V ,1

had. 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 currently

scb!tdu,l~ to commcn" b4are JUI)' f~ an estiol,atefl 10 w:ee~ commenclns B

oon as 9' February 2(}" 9. AlrCadYl DVM 1S0 ju.r)' summonses have been issued by th~ Conrt Pl~, it Wl:)llld hardl~ be ClJpropriate 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 other c:~tmcmts p:r~V:CJ1tsd me 1i'om h.f:rring fhepplioation uny latctr.h;an 9 January, At the tim.e of h~1Wing the app,licaticllt X was aware. that no reserve time had be~. allocated tome tmf:)t ~ 9 Febru~.

\J L·

. . J "7r- l 1- \. z, \ ~h L. i.. "l. Ut "L \ )Jv 7..

[3] IeoUlQ nQ' affotd the lux.~ of.!?ctin~uponmy ~isi:on!or the l..etnaiadCJ'

Jr uat day I at .~ w~ tim nti\y JuJie ms~ t l ~t tH\it ManJ:au DisrAct Coatt ~t

1-_1 ~ (1 -' 'l. .1.H I' '\ 3' ,!or 1~3'~ ..'

aU'tllj,t day ana thad to &1t ttl the liSt Ct),Wi fOr a tun day, dealmg With it ",'cry large

list, tnt.l1.idilli ~us arrest ~es uruncdia~ly fier b_earin& the SFO~s application.' QQviQtl5i1y, the liberuy QC the .im1htjt'h~al outwe.i 8M my other oonsid.erations.

,VOIO-CON1INUANCE.

'(V.C,,) vN1AX

:2-SP~C\NG-S, ~

RULE.

r

r

, ,

t

I

, ,

, f

•

\ f1'! 2. \_ ?-- \1 • 1. 4. \ ,Ale , ""2. l:'2- 0

III (:.1) an Q~ iorwtiloh the l'tlJ'lXUllLUl1 penalty is: nnprtSonmonlt far life or

imprisOTJIT1l!mf to:r 14,)'tars or more; or --

\).(.....

b) \ .tfr. 'L I,· ~ 0.. •• '. j;'b . "' ...

• ,ail ~;n~ of'~empw,llg or ~lnng to ccmmn, or OJ; . -Ing a pw. tY TO

the oo:nnmssion of', Qf 9f being lID accessory aftcr 1Jl~ met to, m, offence

\J.t. :Ofcrrcu1o Ul'para-.graph ( .

. l " 4- t \ .. " 1. NQ. 1. ~ \"L- I ~ t ~ 3

2) The .I may, on a wo. ,ten applulBtlOll fOt the pu.rpos~ made by the 'P'Elosecwnr

l~tJO Iud . d served on the. accused. pmtlD before tnc uecused pm-SOll is 8iV'tn itl

charge to the Jm:y, order that the aeaused person be to.cd for the Dfr~cB before the Jl1dge\vi:thout aj~.

110'"

i.j, 1 .t z, I t. 1 2- 1 fI'" z, , fI!.!:!'4. It l :z- l

(3) . l1owevor. ~ l\ldL~ may -m~ an order \Ul(l,1tf s..ggs~ct1 n (2 Dllly l.f the

~~1MOD .~~ '~tla.' edD?-:'S.Qfl ~ave b~ gi~e.n on. QPPmt .. unity :UJ be nelU'a in ~latlOill-lil ~ ' .. 1manollr tt(lQ ft.tllQWlng such bearUlg, the Judge Is :S8tisfied-

IlL' ... ,p-

\J. " , ",. l ""l' ~. 4 ~ ::I

• . ~l tlmt aU reDson:abl~ ~&ed.\U'al 9Ld$IS tif any). and (ill crthel' rCY~Qnablt

arrang~rsl (if lmy) to faciU~al~ the shortening or rh:c Dial, hltVe been rn:adc, but the d~n ofthl: trial still s~likeJy to t;Xceed 20 days; tm4

\J .l.. ':+ .lJ. 1 . "l ~ . I -z.. Il.!ll . •

• (b) that in tlle CU"Gwuumce ofth,e elf! tie accused p_on'e:rig.bt to J,na1 by

jury is ~~hed by the liktliJlt'Jod that pe entia] .furor will nee be able to

parfonn rheitdu.dM effectively. .

~ • (,. . . 4. \ '"Z. l "'Z- ~ 0 t':!.J,l"'<O ~ . \ & tjG I

l4~ w~consm-ell~ tat th~ ptlrpose;s of suUseenot) (3)(b), tUe cm:umstaJ1* of the cas~e ~ must. take uno ~l tlte fotlo\V'1ng~rs:

\:\,\..,' \\ t,! ot '-.' rJ"'~l. ?- , ~ 2 t,. l

.1 . a,)!f'i n~tnbcr tmd nta'Urc of the Off~Si «fj th \vb.u:h li\e aeells~ person l,S

chaiS6d=~ - -

-

\1.(..'

• (b) the l1tltnre of the lSSll'!slikely to be' in~~olvfJd: \J.t..,

• (0) the volume ofcvidcmee likely to be ~ented:

\J.e· '

- d) the iJ:npQs:itiola on 'P [en.'tiw j\JlQPl of si:ttin& for the liltely d1U"atiol'l of tht!

~: .

\).l·

:~O\6-tONTINUAMCE. ~~~~~~~IN6-SlNl~X. RULE.

,

• It

i

f ,

; r

:SYNTM-COMMUNICATION-WOBP-KEY: 1 = ADVERB

2=VERl3

3 = ADJECTIVE

7', 4= PRONOUN

' B::: PAST-TIME-TENSE

9 ::: FUTURE- TIME-TENSE

The date of:. ~ftbe ~ew legis1atioa was 2$ j~e 2eO JfM~_~~mw'C'PLE-YERB

1;., - 'L \ ' ?.. \ ,~1.. \ '1. 1 1- , S I'» "l.;-

S 2(1).:s:3 ID c~e into force six months: aiTer 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.. ~I

I. 3 It, , , 4 \ '1. ~ 1 i NO , 'f .

[Cll The indi~!Illt r:;onfaU1s 36 QO~ 11l al~ ~e up 0 L6 !!~sat10ns of

t.b .1-.. b' """1.., • \ 'b .L.' ...A L \f 1- \ ?_ lrb \ I,

obunllmg y a..er;epUQll, DlVI)1'Vi1ilg , . Ow ac(;1lS~ 7 a , U8mg' a dOCUTIil~;o1 wS onesny

;:;- ~, ."1,-1.-. 3 I,., , \, 1",-:t- ,\ No 1.. ,., "" C ,

~aWlS to MY Vr,tcnzti 0111),. t:\vo af wun~ a document wiih \.!tent ~(J ~fr~d agahlst

Mr Wg,zelo~y. o!e. C~f of rr~g ~crs p~_tiJ'i 65(l) ~the crimn A~t

,0 LL I , ?- , "'h 'JI .:.- '-r- N ''1., '1, \ l.. !Cl k \ ,3, ~

and one otf~g; 'to p1'oducc \lnc\Ul\~, as ~q~twder s 45 Q:t;' the SetlQUS Ft1}ud

..... 1. \.j:. 1";;-\ 1.. ':\ ~ \ _ ~, ]. \I'" 4-

9.ffice .Act. These t'\\'o la~t cbaT,ges~ ~1l pmst Mr Wenzel ~ne,

\1, . l '1.. ' .... J 'l 1. \ 3

[7] The qfjmc.es in~lVl!l ~~ eompla mortg~~e &a~ds, with ~1l1tiple

", l+. ,i 1; ... 4, t. .. : .. '" 1. . I-r 1 '2. '8 3 _}I'_!t ....

fr'ilDsacnona .u ./.Wj'ers W J.4lll1 U'8.l1S.aCticms, spre:u1 O"\ltU' some ~ ~arat~ }!!lij'~rtla,

with what bas Deem dcscri,bed. M a (ophistica,te4 modus operantb mIatm.g to the .' .. off(mding. ,.It,~ theprOR8Cuuon _(I tWill in ~y instanecs, }Jil"Ciperties were being t>'at'Chased by cmtttie$ :controUed bf Mr Weri2el and tlteri aold by that entity to another ~omi Who worlaid..b Mr. ''1lemel, or was othc:rwtso ~oSf;ly assodated with him. These pu.tt:ihas~ verc lhen a~ by Mr WflID,2cl to si~ documents and enfl!r agrettmet\ls. including lo~.i1Pf'ncatioWJ. whiell, they knew liute about and.. in

ltlatfyeases W_Q loa.ns Wete' I:\tt3.tl:jed 'tbcre wert: s=e dllY pa)'lll~ ofbO,ttQw~

I

fi.mds back to tlm origialtrendor. The 'AJlume of e lt1~ll&e is 1:lkely 10 be- lal..11el with

some 4.3 p'rOsecutjOll M.tnosscs. Six g'-those Witnesses' brildS of eVlden,lt~ exceed :W paS"es! ad t\vo of them ~eee:d, SO' }Jages, 'I.b.e 41 pTosecmiou ,Vimessl!s are ;!.DAde up of eight b~!l'OW'ffS or Purcnas~1 four Teal ¢j~e' agents, six employees of husi~os run by ME W~l. five m~_ bl'okers, n lenders' repl'csenkttives,a J?olu~e doeu.ment ~~, three la,wym at 1a~n1 cxec~tiVf;' and wo Serious Fraud Of11ee iuvestJgators.

~.~ .

l 4-- \ 2- ,'- c: .. 't, \ ~z ,

( J The ctial was Sel Qo\W1 for 1 0 \ v ebks~ wliitili~ of l tl!eU. WIll be a eotts'ldenlbk

il'l'lposition on ally [urcr, The Slriolis FrJ1Ud Office maintain that the CYldence is

c;Qmplox .. v lumi:n: us ~ in mm,' 'CasesJ.tmsta1'J±hny repcti1ive. Tt would, tom.

~ be e:atemely dif!ieult Cal' any person ummed to the absorptiCl11 of complex

:VO IO-CONTI NUANCE. (V .t . ) :Z-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE,

, I I

¥

t

i

I

, J

t

#

f

evidence TO distmgmsh one transa&Uon &amanother at th,e cenelusicn of a trial of t1llii length.

\j,c... -J

I ')...1 1,..", ? t,. .\ ,_ 9.!- 0 . \ t" 'l- .... \ 1... I

[9J 1 a,nl. ~~ ,.ttty Trim LlalSon .1114., for M~ and am ~Jtelya «reo ~')I the

, ~ t)J 4- . \ 1.. \ 3t l'J<>:;. • Lfo.

parncular rugbllml$ rJ1I.t ~e¢l man. St)\ltti Auc" and JC!2spco(ive JII.U'ors. There are

50I1lC:"~ of the order of ISO Jdenrifillhle ~hnie groups within toe outhAuckla.nd

. . .

area, Ime,rpr .. s ue reqUU'c4 in l.iIl'<'urt ona daily bu.sis andrnuny oi tho tl that do 51' $: English are BPeoalting it atS a secG:nn language and frequenIl}' only have a very

limiWd gnmp of that L~gu:agc. .

\je .

. 1 ':1. \ IJ-. \, 3 tJ' 4 \ No l. t.I'!.. \ ,1.

[10) Such IS the freqUmfCY that languafe E!2bh~ms arc ~\oLinteTt;!;l.uu\t t make It

I '. 3_. '4., . tJI 1. • k_1- th' M'> 'Lllin f" , •

my staniial:u ]!!SOllee, ~~y vlilort: . e ~ane' . g 0 Jurors, to I!l\'lt~ ~y

flanel mmJlb~ who bi eoneemed about their lack of ot limited English to make their

•

concmns lmOv,rn 'to JUC. 1 mtll have a Mnvenaticm "i1li thai particu:1m- panel Ttterqbl3', in ord~ to assess whetl1lI tbey are likely to ha e s:~5ci=t b.'llowledgt; of 13n~ to Se)"Vtl. It also shoulcl notbc: ftltgorteo that, parlieularl witlnn the Pacific IslaDds~ many pe'Jple =pcdlnce diffiGulty it)' the E.nglish Language use of tlo'Uble negmhfcS. In om; recent trial, t had to oxcWie fiv4! panel mm1:bers because o.f language difflc;;;u1li:n.

\.J. c, J.

. L."{ 1. I;..~ 1 '2,., I \ 1... l .$ .,. 4 r J, .

{11] Of parti!llhur ceacem (0 mtc was the fact 'Ci1it Mr Wenzc1J at the deposmons

4-

h~~iIlg, refused ~() ~~CIlttt() 1Jl1)' brief of t~idenct: at ail bti:ns th~ subj.ccl to' -"band-

up' ~ Partly as a result, tbe ~epr&tfons he«d.n.s fan for a [ota'l ot 11 days, during whioh it was oruYfjOsstb le for 11 £)f the 41 pro5'CCutiGn WiU:lMSes to pve evidcoC4. had .~foTl1 me afiidavi evidence from ~ Danb)'~ it Serious Fmud Office in "estigittorl that even p~ly formal eYidcn~ (5ll(~b as that by bank officm tt:mrely prooucin,J d~.Wl1entlal'Y r:xhibiu) co\tId nQ~be ilgtetd. Further, at present, M't W en~l has, indicated that nO wi~~ may be ,rtlad at the fortncQuUtli trial there ,arc De fmmnl a~si~ ilmt be isprepantd to make and no schcJ.ules ~ be: agreed,

1~~10NTINUANCE. I.A C I N G - S Y N T A X -

~S!'i.61Jii~~MMUNICATION.WQBQ·Ki't 2=VERB

3 :.! ADJECTIVE 4== PRONOUN

B "" PAST-TIME-TENSf

9 = fUTURE-TlME-TENSI; 0;, CONJUNCTION

DPV = D.ANSLING.PAff9CIPlE_YEBa

~X-CQMMUNICAnON-WORD;l{f;-'1. l' :;ADV~RB

2 =-VERB

3 ; ADJECTIVE 4 = PRONOUN

(j := PAST- TIME-TENSE

9: fUTURE- TIME-TENSE 0== CONJUNCTION

bpv == DAN,GLlNG~PARTlCIPLE.VEBB

,

~

,

,

I

r

,

on:1y people to f6ec I;! c~ t~ oftilleptio'n thllt can. h'ilve their rightt> to It jUry trial removed_ T~, he~o1'ltended. was CQutnllt'y to the fair trial prOvisiorm o.f'tht New Zealand 13m oflUghts ~t' rll'ld he pomteOQut that the 1egiswnon. itse;:if, camra.\<'ated 5 2'4(") of'thc 1990 legi.slatLon~ whlehpl'ovid.:

~\):)IO_"

"'I;; t.'!J:)'ona who is; clmtged with an Qtti~e .. , ~haU have the righ1: ... to the 'bCllc:.6t nf . td.~l by jury Wb.~ 1bfi P~ (o:r the offctnce lS or illelUi3es tmpl't~olllt),st;fQr rMl'e tnm three m'l'l~,-~

\l,(, At i -\ 9 1.l , l . I,\lIIIQ- .-~ \ .x » 1

(16] If was au\mi_t1ted tlmt the trial l~1f (although b'Ullty) woUld llot b~ that

comJncat~ an~ th'tt J; st~ bAd bein lal~ lty th~ StSo~s Frciha Q!!1~t ~ tea-uee

ilil 2. If '2- .\ , }JII ... : 2. 0 . ';1 • ,.,f., '_ tt: ith . e p.~~ (I counts m the mYlr.:tiUemt or to Gl")muuer sevcmng JS\te LnUJct~t WI

, --'

two or m~ trials. it was~ubmitf.ed thBt either or both of thQsem~ <'Ure. s would r~dJtoc the kial betov\' the SUUU.W time limi, H! poiJlltedout tbta1 toe mal Jt dge hfIj. ···the jnhorell[ power to stop any tl1a1 whi-dh is oppressive and! r to restriet the Jlumb~J:

,

t

I

. '

;SYNTAX·CQMMUNIO,6iTION~wo6D.~'t, '1 =ADVERS

2==VERB

3 == ADJECTIVE 4= PRONOUN

8 ;: EAsy. TIME-TENSE

9 :: FUTUBE-TIME-TENSE dc: CONJUNCn:ON

, ., '. DPV = ~NGL.I~PABTICIPLE.VEAB

of QUDts];1l me mdictn:tent to mU:lm the mal mere ,ll1ann.8'C:;fI.bl~~ ~ a l'e'r It was

:VO IO-CONTI NUANCE. ( V . C . )

:Z-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE.

/0

furtber suhmitteij that if this Ceerr \l~e to ~t the ilppUcatiallt It would ;simply eD~oUIllge the S:eric:1US :Fta\ld O~o tfil ~rload lll(Uctmmlts as lit. matter ofrOUl1flt .w

I

ordetto ensure: that it OD~ned a ludgealQlllc trial.

\) c. .

:!C~~~~·ls 'not the cm.:ly pt'Qbh:m. It is difficult for U'lrlst people ro:t't1kc ~~, ti:iric away ~th it;~)'er'y...da~'llvQ tvatkndju:ry ~ce. This is. pnrtiuulfllItly '£~ r~ pi<Oftssional ,l!1d ~lf-emplCi!~ec:i 1)CO!)1e. The 1~ of sorne ~ also makes it v~ difiicu4: tUQl)rnpreh.cmd anj,mentallyremm. tho sbeer b.1iJk 01 evidence. Th~ writttn tl'mterialn1A}' b~ vOlmnmr;iul> n:.l

't U,c...

""urn. 1~6:

.t,-. VO\O--

'rrherc 113 ~ obliption (in tb~ Cro"A"t1 te e:t'L'itlrc that tbit DUtnber of CO~S 'ill

the mdlc:tment Is ktpttQ a~OOFn.'blt' level. H'o,vevcr. mw UJ.O:m 4otnplt!l ease • II ma~ ru>1 ''be pll~!iible' to lmnt tm nunlber of eo'Ul1't£ OT th c~~.fJ f!l,.lidenC!!'"rtthout (lbseurml tbt true ruttw:~ aM11Imge of the eomJuet ttlleged ""'

f

I

t , ,

t ,.

M

,

$Y_"tTAX.CQMMUNtCAIIQN·WOBO_KEY~ 1 J; ADVERB

2~ VERS

3= ADJECnVE 4=P'RONOUN

8 ;:: !?A SJ.-TI ME· TENSE

I.VQ.\O- -J. 9~EUTURf·TIME.TENS.E

1.. ~., . 0 ;:j CONJUNCTION

~ ~6\:a~1'~9S quaM,S tj1.., lord Phill1ps MR.): OPV = DANGLING-PARTICIPLE-YEas

"I belil"'¢' tbllt it will ~ly be' possiMe fat n 'C~pme-tlt .TUcipl with the

G6-0pcrntbm at eo~~lt and ~u::ntio\.l1~ ceunsel tor botb proSet:ll1:ion

md a~ttmee. by pnx;,e:i1l '" ~veting C:OUlUS gmd mlg-!mctn8, e\'tdc:nec to

red lee: the ~ 10 a dimens Q.D that '!he: jury eun C'rxmpT.~t:L B' lhls pns-

SU}l1,JQit5 tl fugb Cift:'e Clf Q,cmfidenc:e un mo pan ofthu = QD.I:iemed. perhaps

1u~r than btte itlln rCf1~(J'na.b1y ex.peot te be WlditLy available and, if a

dcl'ec ,e(1Il1I1$,~l ~s our to 5,Poil rGUler thIrt ttl co-operate (nOT bilp1l1,1 "

. ~iMllon that·! have alledenQ~)~I b:eJie\ e such a ceurse 1s lik~ly to rendt:r i! tri111'tMmanl1ij'i,bl~.nu_& pr~t.ss CD:\]1 remlers 1I b:ial ~,geablc by remoVing !'erm the Jury It large: {SOIDC:,'tl.meS: CVcn the wajOl') pm 01 U1:e eVideenuths.t is 17ele¥WlT W the ~C1ltral i.ssu~ • the ~ of the defendant O~ me evidence. t~t 'is trfi_g4'rmeco from t ~ jU:ry ~ c:og~nt, 1 believe that 3: trl 1 pto~rlQ.uir~ one 10 Temo\'e i'rOltl the mb1,ma1 a larg~ part of tile :re_~ evidfmce, bt03llS! it would otherwise ovtr\Vhdlll t11C- trl1i»:mnl, be ,seriously t1a~ 8!tt1. SO flu- &8.1 '1Ull caneenJed; thiS \S the prim~re~'Qn why.1 nouderthat t!1ll11Jl1el. GAWl!d.eascs sMuldrun be tried by juri~#.

\J. • 0P.l

[10J Je Slerl3USF~d oLe nek ctrl\l :rn~ -inion to ~e r~n I~tlie L~d

I'lli., . 1.. :t * . _ I 1. ~) ~ 0.....-. .?

Order Select Comnunce to. tb(l Soue 0'1'1 t.n Bill •. , wbleb stated:

- . .---

U·LJ,\}cM_

"We I~~ow'lq¢ .,r the fundam~~ rilht "to trl;11 b.y jury snou1d be p:~ed.lU1d rtot.e that fJl!& 11111 does nor limit ODs right to some oircu.rnstnl\C~. l:l1e nght to. njUry lMLhu its oundarlcn in the),lagttn C:.'itUl u.n4 L$ ~dified ;n s 66 ttl ine ~bm$al'Y Prtlec:.edinJ,S Aet Uti7' trod Sl4(1!:) of tbe 'New ze-_a:am (1 rugllts run 1. b\lt'- S1 'bject te s s o! that A,g~ Se~t1ou Sallows justificqlmm' fC b - p1aud C!11l the :rlfih,lS ana ~om.& ontilined in. fum Act, The At4Qme'y .. ~eneraI OtlosiO;rs that the limitS ptopt>sed on jury trlilli do nDt'breaelt the 8111 t;>frull:\-=?'~

~\j& r_'.4- ; I "L I' , _" :l "2- \ t.- J tJ" ~~ ,t __ -z, \

~~diriglY~ it wassubm1~ that tilt: ~w statutory ~V1moll do p~ tl

'" ":2.. .. \..1 1" I'. 1 ~t..~ ...:'31" ~ I. 3 Y.al a , r: _....I~ , ·'A ..• 1 d ....

~SQf1ufletmlt on tne ~~t (0 II Jury tn'. and ~ous saJ.e,guw,1oIO ~ p:rovlwzw ~t

requite the Judge 10 'be atistied tbat ~s [hat could 1)3, e been tal::iem to shorten :the t'1ial have been taktm, as well as lumg lnt a.cuounl titst at specified iSJmeS befol'4 grantin~ th~ Older. In pamcuUtt. 4ot:'uments pursuan.ttu SS 11, 1. () and 133 of he Evidence, A.c, 200S n:t"~ bean served on d,¢!cncc: cou~1. giving nl'ltioe ()f hearsay

:VOID-CONTINUANCE, ( V I C I )

:2-SPACING-SYNTAXRULE.

{(

~on tQ offer do~u without "Piling a vl"itll1l:sa and il notice of intention to QIftr ill cyjd~e lUmim.a.dcs ·of v .1u.rW:nom1 d.ocuments. Mcotdlngly, Uu;rc ,itTe no Jurtner j'~asonable promeduml or~'S ili ~Iem=nlli whi<h could ~a:tl the ihortemn,g of the- trial cmd Mr Wml2I'!~ baa ronply de.m~ted to-dale lIis unwilJ.:ingne$S to aSsi&l in that regard.

·

a\o e, e.1though ~Beetion (2) I1no~; the' ~pliC'a.tiQn to b made at un. dtne befor~

1m aQlmSed p=r$.olQ lS gf~1m m charge 10 f.l'[e j LLt)', it would bQ most uIUiatis£~ if that applie.a:tion was only ~~()n the firsl dOll' of ttial wirh fUl .uernely large jw:y ~el awaith:\J the result of the 1J;pp14catif1n. r~ld JW)' wmentbl ' im;la and the Colltt .llyerlletwcOIl th~ .lre; fur too mnall ~ ~p with such Ii hlWb r I;)fJ~ mdroany

I

'" . , • ,cloe'nJU1VIIYIUOUVArlD!%WOR'p:REY:

1-ADVERB -

2 ",VERB

3 == ADJECTIVE

I· . 4 = PRONOUN

S = PASJ-T1ME- TENSe

9= FUTURE~TIME-TENSE 0= CONJUNCTION

DPrV = DANGLING-PARTICIPLE-VER6 of them would inevitably have to wait outside the building in the open air. In order

to try ami avoid thr~J scenario, I simply /anred to establish whether an application

under the new statutory previsions was likely to be made by the: Serious Fraud

Office. SOl that time- could be allocated for its hearing prior to thecommencemenr of

the tria]

\J,l.o.

, l·~ i ~ ~ 4 l '1. rtJ. ~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 astonishment

and rncreduhty. A::; the Jury Liaison Judge, I would have to be the first to be aware of any such arrangement, Jury trial Judges are assigned simply in accordance 'With their availability and subject to the roster wlrich is designed to ensure. as far as is practicable, for all Judges to experience as much variety as possible and for each Jury Trial Judge to share equal responsibility for that work, It is true that in the case of anticipated Iong , trials, the trial Judge iSI whenever possible, assigned at a relatively early stage but this is to enable that Judge to deal with pre-trial issues and to ensure that tho long trials are apportioned fairly, having regard to the onerous responsibility of the Judge in such circumstances. There is certainly no arrangement at Manukau as to the assignment of certain judges only to particular types, of trial. On a personal note 1 would that my own previous experience of an SFO trial is limited to one instance when I was at the Bar and I defended ODe OJ" two Accused chm-ged with diverting charitable funds to their own UEe.

~.( • (J9J

\ "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 Iy.,-,.,. ~,... 1'1" ~ Il l;. I .3 '7 , I,c. • •

satisfied, for the reasons advanced by the Senous Fraud Office, that the Indictment

---1 - ~

cannojzeadily be reduced. The volume of evidence likely to be presented is extremely substantial

U,L. . v

,. I 'l·lJ, I ~ ~ I .!oJ L ,l z:? \ ,f'JiJ 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 that 1he forensic accountant, Ms Pedan, was cross-examined about the narure of financial structures in the Cayman Islands, her experience (if any) in the setting Up of censtructive trusts within transactions and hOT experience of' financing between ccmp ani e~ a-nd trusts. At p age 318, the sante witnesswas asked about the possib Ie terms of .£1. constructive trust 4.Lld thewitness dealt with a scenano put to her by

:VOIO-cONTINUANCE, ( V , C , ) :2-SPACING-SYNTAX-

n-'II r

!SY.U'IAX.-COMMUNICATION:WQRP-KEY: ''". A6VERB

":= = IEAB

~ =: ADJECTIVE 4=PAONOUN

V =PASFTIME-TENSE

£I.=.. EUTUBE-IIME- TENSE o = CONJUNCTION

OPV ",. DANGLlNG~PABI'ClplE.YEBB

,~O\D_CON1\NUANCE. , ( ~ , C ,) . Y N 1 AX:2,_S?A,CING-S

RULE,

referring t-o an aser b:.lving a liabl1i'ty witl:ia cenein ameunt whiell lualmpu!:a.hOii!i £ill" tbe loaa to '\'!luo ratio and iffeO't~d the net ~set po,sition tt£ the borrower applicant. At page 309, Mr Biolett1 asked aglJWJtion whkb! In part, drew tilt:'; 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 nnptcts en th~ Ul!:lome _run or thl: bw:roWc::r ilJld may well itxlpM11ipon the~ a.bility '(0 meet tlu:lr Qblige,rioIl$ und~T tmy morrgrtge and tho:sc- lite ~ thatouglnoo be Wseloscdm lhll' iendIDg institu~! SO that !her ~atI pr~oper~~s:~ Toan to ~tm:tiO anatbe debt Servioing:Rmos of the:are~~ "

!J.C·

.. 't. n,' 4 . .. .t. l L *l,. ,.., .o;'l r~~ 1,. 1""" 'v.",,''+ I "'!t,} dR'

MT .r>u)lettl wen put .t.UO :P~ili:l.UOU ~t a plIuA. S seclln!y I4\<wg H te~"crc

lllort~agf:: wontd nu:tk ah;;d ~f RflY equitableintcre~t. so' that they ;0111d be:

OQmpletely proteete4.

\) C' 1

I L IW. I. ,J . 3. ~ .3, l+g ~ , I,.. J

[29] [completely {SlClcl Me lhoiem S sUmlllsSloIl that. a lw:y would easily

2... ~,1'40'2- .1, 1:\.}1' .. "L~ .• r-.l ~

compr~h:ent1 theissue hke1ytro be ~volve!J1l d:lls trial.

\.).(, .. It -

'* riO) Further, it is p .. f~dy plain IMt the imposition on :potmtuu juroD ot sit:ti:rtS J'lt the 1 1:c1y durafttm of till; trial \\ill be CQnfiderable uad, _ \\1th any len!tby tria11

~ must be con ¢11JS wheU:1er: itt least 11 jllttlrs will bc.le to las! thetListanee.

Thcxe isa m1 riSK that aj I:Ity trial might ha. I~ to be aborted because of IW{J or mOTe jurorS bUg :incapchle of ecmtunling to ait, r;.~ultilll in a v-e,ry wbstantial wast~ ('If II. ~nbllc funds;

, \l.C'

.C;:f!D~uslOll ,

\jC· ~ L 3 N" 4- I, 1.. .'. 2' 2. I ,1: :J. t--. .~ t.:

::311 FtTr an theslI reus ns, 1 Ittl ~tl~:fiea 1:bat :Ute SeriOUS F't'laUd. Office IS entttely

, -- - \ - 2'1 I

(tl'tec.t "lken th,ey submit nUll iris difijcult to ,envcisage a trial lnQt8 suit.ed t~ the

@& ~ e .-

~6tC:is.e cfltt:,~hItory disoretWn thtm s, comple1X aI1eg~d fraud t:dill such as this,

U c,. . ' -

• ND ~ I L I i L .. 1 NO z. . \ "L.~ \ z; 'I

~1 AccQrdinJl:Yl 1 am 5,il.tisll~d t1:ii(t the sceus_' rignt 'to jury mal is.

2. ...__,. 01. ~ ~ 1, - ~. ~ . I ."2. '. 'L I

?J'vCith!..~ ~d, S\1bstmmally Oll :VCIP_" by the Ilkc.lllV:tOd mat the Jury WIn not b(;

~ -z, ~\errJm tbcirj~s ch1fies ~e&velY,

~ ~

..

is

4. "l.. t . .3 4 e . I r..JO 3. 1,."1 ~

(33J l'l1u!, the grounds ave Jnnde out and the application pl1rS1l1U'1t to s 3 .1D is

----

Lg .

gIilme'd..

-

!{nyWade

District Gun IJlidf!e Itf.

~.,u:@ X-CQMMUNICATIQN-WQRD=KEY~ . . ! = APVEHB it e, \IERf! 3 ::; ADJEC'TlVE 4- '" PRO\lOUN E ". f'&SJ:TIME-TENSE '" ~ ~aE"IIME-TeNSE o ::-:CON~IUNCTltON pr;s'l ~ !}ANGLING-PARTICIPLE-VERB

SnlitntoB'