Paul Bublitz sued for compensation under the Criminal Procedure Act having
spent $1.2 million on defence legal costs wasted in an aborted criminal trial
over failed Viaduct Capital. He was
awarded ten thousand dollars. Five
months have been allocated for a retrial starting July.
Mr Bublitz was
charged by the Financial Markets Authority in 2014 with financial crimes
allegedly arising from the operation of finance company Viaduct Capital. Three others were also charged. Viaduct investors were protected by a
government guarantee then in effect following the 2008 global financial crisis. It is alleged trust deed provisions
prohibiting related party transactions were breached. There are also allegations of false statements
in publically available prospectuses and investment statements.
The FMA
prosecution against all defendants was aborted in May 2017 after Justice
Woolford ruled that belated disclosure of documents amounted to a breach of the
Criminal Disclosure Act. All up, 14,600
documents were involved. They had been
generated earlier by Deloitte, acting as investigating agents for FMA. The FMA had considered these documents irrelevant
or protected by legal privilege. Justice
Woolford ruled late disclosure irretrievably harmed the defence: strategic
decisions as to priority and narrative had been lost; witnesses who had already
given evidence would have to be recalled.
At this point, the trial had run for nine months. Three months was the original estimate.
Mr Bublitz
sued for wasted legal expenses. The High
Court was told he had spent more than $1.2 million. After exhausting his own financial resources,
Legal Aid Services picked up Mr Bublitz’s tab for a further $245,000. Mr Bublitz said he needed full reimbursement
to pay for a lawyer of his own choice at the July retrial. He did not want a lawyer appointed in
rotation off the legal aid list. Justice Woolford ruled sanctions in the
Criminal Procedure Act are not compensatory, they are a penalty for
non-compliance. There was no reasonable
excuse for late disclosure by the FMA, he said, but it was inadvertent. The FMA was ordered to pay $10,000 to Mr
Bublitz. Legal Aid Services has first
claim on this money.
R. v. Bublitz – High Court (9.03.18)
18.051