Vehicle reported stolen already sold, Court told

Press, 31 August 1989, Page 21

Vehicle reported stolen already sold, Court told

The day before Trevor Alan Lee reported his near-new utility vehicle as having been unlawfully taken in Christchurch, it was sold to an Auckland car dealer for $14,000, the District Court in Christchurch heard yesterday. The cheque for $14,000 was paid into the account of Trevor James Randall, who had been a business partner of Lee, and the funds were then withdrawn. The two men were alleged at a preliminary hearing to have conspired between June 13 and August 7, 1985, to defraud Motor Trade Finances.

The joint charge alleged the conspiracy was done fraudulently, by their agreeing to falsely report the theft of a utility vehicle, and their subsequently selling it. After hearing evidence and statements of prosecution witnesses, and counsel’s submissions, Judge Frampton committed both defendants for trial by jury in the District Court.

He adjourned the charge, pending a date for their trial.

Lee, aged 39, a sickness beneficiary, was represented by Mr lan Hunt and Randall, aged 39, a moss picker, by Mr Tony Garrett.

Sergeant Pat Creasey prosecuted.

Prosecution evidence was that Lee purchased the new utility vehicle from a Christchurch firm, under a hire-purchase agreement, in January, 1985.

Payments subsequently

fell behind. On August 5, 1985, a man called at an Auckland car dealer’s premises seeking to sell the utility vehicle, and it wasd purchased from him for. $14,000. The man, whom the proprietor could not identify, used the name William Bruce Thompson on documents relating to the transaction. A cheque for $14,000 was made out to him.

On August 6 a man, giving his name as Lee, telephoned the Christchurch police to report that his utility vehicle, valued at $26,000, had been unlawfully taken outside a hotel in the city.

Other evidence was that the $14,000 was deposited in an account held by Randall, on August 6, 1985. This sum was withdrawn two days later.

The vehicle was resold by the Auckland car sales firm, and it was not until about a year later that the firm’s proprietor learned that money was owing on the vehicle when he bought it. Constable Paul Bonsey, of Oamaru, said he interviewed Randall on January 26, 1987. He asked the circumstances of Randall’s having $14,000 deposited into his account, and the subsequent withdrawal and use of those funds.

Randall said the money was from his sale of sovereigns to a man in Dunedin.

He had given the purchaser one of his bank deposit forms, and the $14,000 was paid into his account.

Randall did not wish to say what he did with the money. He said he had not sold the utility vehicle in Auckland.

Detective Sergeant Richard McCaskill said he interviewed Lee on May 19, 1987. Lee said he had purchased the utility vehicle new in 1985 and it was stolen in August that year. That was all he knew about it.

Told by the detective that he believed Randall had been involved in selling the utility in Auckland, Lee said that at that time he was having troubles with Randall and another man working for him.

Lee said that as far as he was concerned the vehicle was still his, and if not it belonged to the Christchurch company which sold it to him, and he should get something out of it.

He said he did not know where it was at that time. Detective Sergeant McCaskill said he spoke to Lee again on June 30, 1987.

At that time the detective was aware the utility vehicle had been in Auckland the day before Lee reported it as having been stolen in Christchurch. “Lee could not offer me any explanation about how that came to be,” the witness said. He detailed reasons why the file on the case had taken from December, 1986, when the initial complaint was made to the police in Auckland,

until he was directed to prosecute in August last year.

Among the reasons were the files being referred for investigations in Oamaru, Christchurch, and Auckland, and difficulties in finding the defendants. In cross-examination Detective Sergeant McCaskill accepted that accused persons were entitled to have matters processed quickly, wherever possible. Mr Garrett reserved the defence for Randall.

Mr Hunt submitted there was no case for Lee to answer to the charges. The grounds he advanced were there was insufficient evidence to commit Lee for trial, and on a legal matter of abuse of process through the delay in bringing the prosecution. He said the delay had been excessive, and would prejudice Lee in his defence of the charge.

Mr Hunt said Lee had made no admissions, and there was nothing to connect him with the apparent false registration of the vehicle, and it being given a new identification before being sold in Auckland. There was unsatisfactory evidence that the vehicle sold in Auckland was the one Lee reported stolen in Christchurch. Mr Hunt said the evidence of difficulties in the defendants’ friendship and business relationship further negated the suggestion that they could be involved in a conspiracy.