Media Release

24 October 2013

SFO to withdraw Hutton South Canterbury charges

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has announced it intends to withdraw charges previously laid against Terrence Hutton in relation to South Canterbury Finance Limited.

Mr Hutton was the former Group Accountant for the company and faced two charges alleging false accounting in relation to the recording of a $25 million loan advance and a $10 million loan advance.

SFO Director, Julie Read said that although the charges were originally laid in December 2011, the SFO continually reviews all charges laid to ensure they remain appropriate, fair and in the public interest.

“I am satisfied, having given regard to the requirements of the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines, that the allegations against Mr Hutton should be withdrawn,” Ms Read said.

The trial for the remaining defendants, Lachie McLeod, Edward Sullivan and Robert White, is set down to start in the High Court at Timaru on 12 March 2014. The remaining defendants are alleged to have committed fraud offences under the Crimes Act which carry maximum penalties of between seven and 10 years’ imprisonment.

ENDS

Notes to editors

Background to investigation
Lachie McLeod, Edward Sullivan and Robert White face charges in relation to South Canterbury Finance Limited. The trial is set down to commence on 12 March 2014, in the High Court at Timaru.

Solicitor-General Prosecution Guidelines
The purpose of the Guidelines is “to ensure that the principles and practices as to prosecutions in New Zealand are underpinned by unified values. These values aim to achieve consistency in key decisions and trial practices. If these values are adhered to, New Zealand will continue to have prosecution processes that are open, fair to the defendant, witnesses and the victims of crime, and reflect the proper interests of society.”

THE TEST FOR PROSECUTION
The Test for Prosecution is met if:
(i)            The evidence which can be adduced in Court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction – the Evidential Test; and
(ii)           Prosecution is required in the public interest – the Public Interest Test.
The Evidential Test must be satisfied before the Public Interest Test is considered. The prosecutor must analyse and evaluate all of the evidence and information in a thorough and critical manner.

THE EVIDENTIAL TEST
A reasonable prospect of conviction exists if, in relation to an identifiable individual, there is credible evidence which the prosecution can adduce before a court and upon which evidence an impartial jury (or Judge), properly directed in accordance with the law, could reasonably be expected to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the individual who is prosecuted has committed a criminal offence.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST
Once a prosecutor is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction, the next consideration is whether the public interest requires a prosecution. It is not the rule that all offences for which there are sufficient evidence must be prosecuted. Prosecutors must exercise their discretion as to whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
The predominant consideration is the seriousness of the offence. Where a conviction is likely to result in a significant penalty including any confiscation order or disqualification, then there is a strong public interest for a prosecution. Factors considered in this regard include:
1. Where the defendant was in a position of authority or trust and the offence is an abuse of that position;
2. Where the defendant was a ringleader or an organiser of the offence;
3. Where the offence was premeditated;
4. Where the offence was carried out by a group;
5. Where the offence has resulted in serious financial loss to an individual, corporation, trust person or society;
6. Where there is any element of corruption;
7. Where the defendant has previous convictions, diversions or cautions which are relevant;
8. Where there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, where there is a history of recurring conduct.

Public interest considerations against prosecution include:
1. Where the Court is likely to impose a very small or nominal penalty;
2. Where the offence is not on any test of a serious nature, and is unlikely to be repeated;
3. Where there has been a long passage of time between an offence taking place and the likely date of trial such as to give rise to undue delay or an abuse of process unless:
a. the offence is serious;
b. delay has been caused in part by the defendant;
c. the offence has only recently come to light; or
d. the complexity of the offence has resulted in a lengthy investigation.
4. Where a prosecution is likely to have a detrimental effect on the physical or mental health of a victim or witness;
5. Where the defendant is elderly or a youth;
6. Where the defendant has no previous convictions;
7. Where the defendant was at the time of the offence or trial suffering from significant mental or physical ill-health;
8. Where the victim accepts that the defendant has rectified the loss or harm that was caused (although defendants must not be able to avoid prosecution simply because they pay compensation);
9. Where the recovery of the proceeds of crime can more effectively be pursued by civil action;
10. Where any proper alternatives to prosecution are available.

About the SFO
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was established in 1990 under the Serious Fraud Office Act in response to the collapse of financial markets in New Zealand at that time.

The SFO operates three investigative teams:

•           Evaluation & Intelligence;
•           Financial Markets & Corporate Fraud; and
•           Fraud & Corruption.

The SFO operates under two sets of investigative powers.

Part I of the SFO Act provides that it may act where the Director “has reason to suspect that an investigation into the affairs of any person may disclose serious or complex fraud.”

Part II of the SFO Act provides the SFO with more extensive powers where: “…the Director has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence involving serious or complex fraud may have been committed…”

The SFO’s Annual Report 2012 sets out its achievements for the past year, while the Statement of Intent 2013-2016 sets out the SFO’s three year strategic goals and performance standards.  Both are available online at: www.sfo.govt.nz

ENDS

© Scoop Media