The Star: February 22, 2024

Thursday February 22 2024 The Star
Latest Canterbury news at starnews.co.nz
NEWS 9
over long-delayed insolvency case
Because of his past battles,
there were thousands of documents,
leading to ongoing arguments
and delays.
When the proceedings came
back before Judge Raoul Neave in
the district court in 2019, he said
the case had gone on longer than
it should have.
“The amount of money, taxpayers’
money, that has been wasted
on this case is astronomical,”
Judge Neave said.
In a minute issued shortly after
that, Judge Neave asked Crown
lawyers to reflect on continuing
the prosecution given the “vast
amount of State resources” being
consumed.
But by 2020, the Crown still
believed there was enough
evidence, the prosecution still
had public interest, and the only
reason counting against it was
the time it had taken.
Crown lawyers maintained this
was not their fault.
When the case came back
before Judge Neave, he again said
that “we’ve got better things to be
doing to be quite frank”, but he
would let the case take its course.
He gave the Crown a month
to provide details of the vast
case file to a court-appointed
“amicus” or third-party reviewer.
Then the 2020 Covid lockdown
intervened.
After the lockdown, which had
BATTLER: After David Henderson’s battle with the Inland
Revenue, he bought the building housing their offices and
renamed it Henderson House. PHOTO: JOHN MCCOMBE
put even more pressure on the
court system, the Chief Justice
asked prosecutors to consider
whether cases should proceed.
In 2020, the Deputy Solicitor-
General, who at that time was
Brendan Horsley, then stayed the
Henderson proceedings.
This means the charges won’t
come to court, but instead go into
a legal limbo where questions
of guilt or innocence are never
determined.
“They didn’t consult me. If
they had said, ‘we’re either going
to stay these [charges] or we
might have to delay it a few more
months’, I would have said ‘just
delay it a few more months’.
“I want my day in court,”
Henderson said.
“We all know there is a whole,
lame, metaphor that where there
is smoke there’s fire.
“So, everyone is left with a
view that ‘you know, he did do it,
whatever it is, he’s just lucky’.
“I’m not interested in being
lucky. I know my hands are clean
and I want my day in court. Or
withdraw the charges.”
Henderson made an application
to the High Court to have
the stay removed so he could
have that day in court. That
failed, so he took the matter to
the Court of Appeal.
“Mr Henderson seeks to be
tried before a jury of his peers,”
noted the Court of Appeal judgment.
It also turned down his request
to have the stay removed.
It found the public interest, not
the interests of a particular defendant,
is the only “mandatory
consideration” in whether or not
to grant a stay of prosecution.
Henderson said he would now
seek leave to take the matter to
the Supreme Court.
Part of Henderson’s argument
is that the charges were stayed so
the Crown could avoid criticism,
public shaming and embarrassment
about the way the prosecution
had been conducted.
When asked for comment,
Crown Law emailed a statement,
citing the Court of Appeal
judgment which said the appeal
judges were “readily satisfied
there is no proper basis for these
assertions”.
Asked to explain why the
charges were stayed rather than
withdrawn, Crown Law drew
attention to paragraphs in the
judgment which said the Deputy
Solicitor-General and a District
Court judge had found there
was sufficient evidence on which
a properly directed jury could
convict.
The judgment said matters
taken into account in making the
decision to stay the proceedings
included the length of time the
case had taken, the “intervention”
of the Covid-19 pandemic,
stresses on the courts, likely
further delays, the impact on
Henderson, and the “relatively
trivial nature of the charges”.
“There is in our view nothing
to suggest that the Deputy
Solicitor-General failed to take
into account relevant considerations,
or took into account irrelevant
considerations,” the appeal
judges said.
Crown Law added as Henderson
had said he intended to seek
leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court, “we do not propose to
comment any further”.
THE
BIG BRAND CLEARANCE
HUGE SAVINGS STORE WIDE
10%-70% OFF EVERYTHING
40%-70%
OFF ALL
ASICS NIMBUS 24 M+W
WAS $300 NOW $190
MERRELL PRIMER CANVAS W
WAS $190 NOW $90
ASICS NETBURNER PRO FF 3 W
WAS $240 NOW $140
APPAREL
MIZUNO WAVE RIDER 26 M+W NEW BALANCE FC SUPERCOMP W NEW BALANCE YP880P10 JR NB HOODIES NOW ALL $40
WAS $260 NOW $160
WAS $330 NOW $180
WAS $130 NOW $70
NB TEES NOW ALL $25
–