Justice comes at a price

As the hearing for Operation Slush rolls on, the defence has upped the ante in their questioning of everything from the handling of the case to the motivation of laying of the charges at all.
However, this more aggressive tack led to rather spirited interaction with Justice Nicholson laying down the law on the relevance and even the admissibility of some of the questions.
This was the order of the day in the Thursday hearing of the case during the cross examination of Director of Audit, Paul Allsworth.
Norman George asked why investigations that began in 2003 did not result in laying of charges against himself and co-defendants, Chris Vaile and Charles Koronui until March 2008.
Whose decision was it to lay charges and were they laid for political reasons with instructions to ‘go after Norman George?’ Certainly not.
Was the length of the investigation owing to the incompetence of the investigating officer considering there was also the assistance of the NZ Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and part time assistance of the Audit Office?
Was it true that Detective Inspector Franklin had been investigating the case for three years and then advised by the SFO that there was insufficient evidence to lay charges so had asked for more time and funds to continue the investigations? Yes he did.
Was the detective desperate to lay any charges and did he find that he had to reach back to the Atiu road project of 2002 and visited the island on several occasions? Yes he did visit Atiu several times but that was being thorough.
George then asked the witness if he was aware of the personal life of the investigating officer at which point, Justice Nicholson stopped him as that line of questioning is inappropriate.
George withdrew the question and turned his attention to the cost of the trial costing in the order of $1 million including the costs of specialist Crown prosecutors and travel of witnesses to attend the trial.
Justice Nicholson interrupted to say that ‘Justice comes at a price” and George withdrew the question.
Duty to inform persons being investigated
Justice Nicholson continued his scrutiny of lines of questioning by the defence all throughout the cross examination of the Director of Audit, Paul Allsworth.
Tim Arnold had taken up the cross examination on behalf of his client, Chris Vaile about the procedures for purchasing of capital items in 2001-2002.
Would the director agree that after the repeal of Treasury regulations around the time of the Reform, that there were in fact no procedures for the purchase of capital items? No, that was not true as there were procedures in place that Ministries were familiar with.
Arnold said witnesses such as Steve Barrett, a former MFEM officer, had already conceded that the process was followed on an adhoc basis only and led to inconsistencies? True but the procedures were there but had yet to be formalized into the one document that was produced in late 2002.
Questioning was along the lines of why Audit had not informed his client that his activities were the subject of an investigation by Audit at the time.
The non disclosure had laid him open to innuendoes and rumour at the time and yet had not been given an opportunity to explain himself at the time.
Arnold was referring to the evidence from Caroline Tiria, an Audit officer, which said that Keith Niederer of Pelmec Industries had paid $6,900 in commissions to a ‘Cook Islands resident’ which ‘everyone knew’ referred to ChrisVaile.
Justice Nicholson questioned this statement and asked counsel was saying that ‘everyone in the Cook Islands’ knew? Counsel conceded that was not what he meant.
In any event, the Audit director said it was only those within a very small circle: himself, the Police Commissioner, Crown Law and the Serious Fraud Office who were in the know.
Arnold then turned his attention to non disclosure to his client about the investigation by the Audit office saying that was procedurally unfair to his client and prejudicial to a fair hearing
Justice Nicholson asked counsel if he was saying that Audit ought to have informed Vaile of the investigations as that was not what happened in the real world. The judge said that enquiries were made ‘all the time’ and unless there is something reliable to go on and a need for a public statement, then generally, the investigators do not make their findings public. He said publicity is the antithesis of police enquiries.
Arnold begged to differ and argued that Audit is a public administration body and had a duty to inform those who may be ‘adversely affected’ by an enquiry implicating them.
Audit had not asked his client about a cash withdrawal for $3,600 until some 4 years later in September 2006 and his client had been hard pressed to remember from that long ago.
Again, Justice Nicholson intervened saying it would depend on the circumstance and that some people would remember it well such as for buying a gift for his wife or that a millionaire might say, they had no idea and to check with his secretary.
Arnold changed tack and asked why Audit had not taken up the verbal offer by his client in 2003 that he was willing to come and give a statement but not until he had returned from a trip to New Zealand. The offer was not taken up and Vaile heard nothing more until the 2006 enquiries. Witness said that was up to Crown Law and the Police and not up to him.
The case continues on Friday 25 September 2009.

Headlines : Times 290 02 March 2009
- Lucky $1,000 winner
- Century old palm trees and the French connection
- Koutu Nui takes part in Raui meeting in Moorea
- WOM Award Dinner for Ake Hosea-Winterflood
- Island of Atiu to host Koutu Nui AGM in June 2009