WELLINGTON - Former Labour cabinet minister David Butcher has lost an appeal against his convictions for fraudulently claiming air fares under a scheme for former MPs.
Butcher, aged 51, an economist of Hataitai, Wellington, was found guilty of three charges late last year. He was fined $10,000 and ordered to pay
reparation of $9219 for trips to Washington, Los Angeles and Beijing.
Former MPs qualify for a rebate on international air travel.
Because of Butcher's length of service in Parliament, from 1978 to 1990, he was entitled to claim 75 per cent of the price of a business class return fare from New Zealand to London each year.
The rebate did not apply if Butcher was travelling on business or if some source other than Butcher was paying the rest of the fare.
The Crown said Butcher was disqualified from getting cheap fares for the three trips on both counts.
The evidence was that all three trips were at least in part for business. The balance of two airfares was met by organisations Butcher worked for at the time.
At his appeal, his lawyer argued that the judge had not properly explained his defence to the jury.
Butcher's defence had been that when he got the tickets he honestly believed he was entitled to them, even though his belief might not have been legally correct.
Delivering judgment, the Court of Appeal judges said the jury was left in no doubt as to Butcher's defence.
"The judge made it abundantly clear to the jury that it was for the Crown to prove that [Butcher] acted dishonestly when he obtained each airline ticket," Justice Penlington said when delivering the court's decision.
Butcher did not give evidence at his trial, choosing to rely on statements he had made to police. He complained that the judge had undermined the weight of statements he had made about the trips.
The trial judge had told the jury the statements were not made on oath and the jury had not seen Butcher cross-examined on them.
Butcher's lawyer said the judge should have also said that Butcher did not have to give evidence or prove anything, and that the jury must not assume guilt because he did not give evidence.
Justice Penlington said the court did not see any imbalance or unfairness in the way the judge instructed the jury.
- NZPA
