Charge of vehicle fraud is denied

Press, 25 February 1986, Page 4

Charge of vehicle fraud is denied

A man has denied arranging the theft of his utility vehicle with a young man, so an insurance claim could be made.

James Christopher Tawhara, aged 38, a road surfacing contractor, was giving evidence in the District Court yesterday on the fourth day of his trial on an alleged vehicle insurance fraud conspiracy.

Tawhara (represented by Mr P. J. Rutledge), and two other defendants, are jointly charged with conspiring with deceit, between August 1 and September 23 last year, to defraud the Commercial Union General Insurance Company by arranging the taking of a Holden utility vehicle, to obtain payment on a fraudulent claim for insurance against the company. The other defendants, Shane Michael Tawhara, aged 18, a fabric layer (Mr P. D. Woolley) and Michael William Retallick, aged 20, a clothing cutter (Miss K. G. Feltham) gave their evidence last Friday. All have denied the charge.

The trial, before Judge Sheehan and a jury, will end today. Mr Rutledge, outlining the defence case for James Tawhara, said the only evidence to involve this defendant in the case was that of Retallick, who had claimed that Tawhara had arranged with Retallick for the latter to steal Tawhara’s utility. He warned jurors of the caution with which they must approach Retallick’s evidence. Tawhara, in evidence, said he worked in partnership with another man in a road sealing business at the time his vehicle was stolen. He now worked in this business on his own account. He said all his work was for local authorities, including the Christchurch City Council. Insurance played a big part in his business, as he could not obtain contracts without having public liability cover. As well, he needed insurance cover for his workmen, vehicles and equipment. Tawhara said he purchased the Holden utility for heavy duty work, including towing and spraying plant He kept it in tidy order. Because of considerable work in towing plant to and from Timaru for several months the engine began “smoking,” and subsequently repairs costing $2500 were made. New tyres also were fitted and the brakes relined, and the vehicle was in ready condition for the next road sealing season.

It was in excellent condition at the time it was stolen. Tawhara said he was the coach of a rugby league team, and on Saturday, September 7 last year he was to pick up his team, in a borrowed van,

to show them a video tape of a rugby league test match.

On his return from picking up the tapes he met Retallick walking on the path towards him. He had met Retallick once before, as Retallick had sold his son a motor-cycle.

Retallick asked Tawhara how his utility was going. Tawhara said he recounted what he had had done to it, and that it was going extra well.

He told Retallick he could not speak for long, as he was in a hurry to pick up the team members. No more was said than that. He said the conversation was 30 seconds to a minute, not 15 minutes, as Retallick had stated. He did not discuss with Retallick the planning of an insurance fraud. He was not inside his house when Retallick arrived. Tawhara said that that evening after the team’s match, a party was held and he and his family left for there between 7.45 and 8 p.m. When they arrived home about 1.30 a.m. he found the utility vehicle, which had been parked in the open in his yard, had been stolen. He telephoned the police to report the matter. The police later told him the utility was at an insurance company’s yard, and he viewed it there.

Subsequently, he went to his insurance company and made a claim for its value. He said he paid $ll,OOO for it and to his mind it was worth that amount.

Three weeks later he was told by the insurance company that he should see a solicitor, and that the matter was in the hands of the police,.