Thu 15 Nov 2007 In: New Zealand Daily News View at Wayback View at NDHA
2.10PM: An Auckland District Coury jury has retired to consider its verdict in the Pride Centre fraud case, with the defense suggesting that the accused merely lived up to an "unwise agreement" and is therefore not guilty. The crown alleges that Martin van der Reit, during his eight months as an employee in late 2003 and early 2004, committed seventeen counts of fraud and one instance of perverting the course of justice preceding the financial collapse of the Auckland Pride Centre. Summing up late this morning, the Crown prosecutor characterised the Pride Centre as a small non-profit organisation that seemed to "stumble along from year to year on public donations." He said the Centre received $29,000 to cover a job shared by two people, including van der Reit who held all the financial records of the Centre at the time in question. He said that fraud cases often relied on documentary evidence, but "these documents should be treated with healthy skepticism." The prosecution argued that it made no sense for a board which, as all parties had agreed, did not want to become involved in the production of an ultimately failed Gay Guide project, to still pay for it as van der Reit has claimed it did. It was also clear, the Crown prosecutor said, that the Pride Centre did not have any money available to contribute to the project. Doubt was cast on the authenticity of a number of specific documents which van der Reit said backed up his assertion that he was due $55,000 as salary and contribution to his Gay Guide project. The Crown described long-time Pride Centre stalwart Edward Bennett, a trustee who had the closest dealings with van der Reit and whose evidence has been crucial to the Crown case, as "a man who has invested his life in the Pride Centre and not in some unrealistic dream of a Gay Guide. And his testimony has been corroborated by others." The prosecution interpreted van der Reit's visit to the police to hand over a document purporting his salary to be $55,000, once details of possible fraud at the centre started to become public knowledge, as an attempt to "put the police on the wrong track" and therefore pervert the course of justice. In reply, the defence lawyer stated that the jury must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She said he had a "genuine belief that he was doing the right thing for the Pride Centre." Edward Bennett's evidence could not be relied on beyond reasonable doubt, she said. She also cast doubt on the evidence of design artist Simon Stockley who witnessed two copies of van der Reit's employment contract. "Though Stockley says he sneaked a look at one of the copies, if you believe Mr van der Reit, one copy might have said $19,000, but the other might have said $55,000." The defence also said there was every indication that van der Reit was employed full-time and not part-time as Bennett has testified. Bennett's level of oversight was also brought up. "Bennett denies looking at cheque stubs or the weekly bank statements" yet the accounts were presented to monthly board meetings which Bennett attended. It was strange, the defence suggested, that Bennett continued to pre-sign cheques even though his fellow trustee had expressed concern at an unexpectedly low bank account balance. The defence highlighted that van der Reit and Bennett's fellow trustee Joel Stutter both described Bennett's oversight of the Centre's operations as "meticulous and precise," while Bennett himself portrayed his involvement as vague and detached. The defence summed up the situation as one in which "Martin van der Reit and Edward Bennett "perhaps unwisely made an agreement with each other" in the matter of the employment agreement and production of the Gay Guide "but Mr van der Reit lived up to that agreement, thus the verdict must come back 'not guilty'." The judge then advised the jury to consider the many documents presented during the case and to ignore any prejudices or sympathies. GayNZ.com is at the Court this afternoon and will report on the jury's verdict and the various parties' responses as soon as they come to hand.
Credit: GayNZ.com News Staff
First published: Thursday, 15th November 2007 - 2:21pm