Police v Cribb [2021] NZDC 10475 (31 May 2021)

Last Updated: 28 April 2022

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE PAPAIOEA

CRI-2021-054-001189

2021 NZDC 10475

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Prosecutor v

RICKY CRIBB Defendant

Hearing:	31 May 2021
Appearances:	Sergeant K Outtrim for the Prosecutor W Kronast for the Defendant
Judgment:	31 May 2021

NOTES OF JUDGE B NORTHWOOD ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr Cribb, as you know you have pleaded guilty today to two charges under the Electoral Act 1993. The first charge relates to a failure to file election expenses and the second is a failure to declare candidate donations. The facts of the matter are set out in the summary of facts and I do not see that there is any disagreement from you as to what occurred. You have no material convictions. In fact, it is many, many years since you were last in trouble. I can deal with you as a first offender in effect.

[2] Thank you very much for the documents you have filed. I have had the advantage of reading them before today’s hearing and I have been assisted by what you have told me in court. I accept that your motivation for running for Parliament was honourable in the sense that you were hoping to try and make a difference around mental health. From everything you have told me, that comes from your own personal

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v RICKY CRIBB 2021 NZDC 10475 [31 May 2021]

experiences. To that extent, you are to be given some credit for trying to make a difference in terms of peoples’ wellbeing.

[3] There have been very few past cases of offending of this kind. In 2010 in a case of Ravelich v Police, a $200 fine was imposed under the Electoral Finance Act 2007 relating to the 2008 general election.1 That fine was upheld by the High Court, describing it as generous. Factors to be taken into account include for example the degree of falsehood involved and the deliberateness of the failure to report.

[4] I accept that in the context of your case, this was brought about by oversight on your part and your personal circumstances. I do not think this was a case of deliberate failure necessarily nor do I consider that any degree of falsehood was involved. The purpose of the Electoral Act though of course is to maintain the integrity of the electoral processes and transparency when it comes to electoral donations. On the other side, I accept what you tell me that the donations you in fact obtained were at the lower end of the range.

[5] The only other case that I can find that materially impacts on this matter was a case of Sharma v Police in 2019.2 This followed the 2017 election. The donations in that case totalled over $166,000 in a case involving a candidate for parliament. The Court granted a discharge without conviction contingent upon payment of a fine of

$3,500.

[6] I consider this case to be far less serious. Upon each of these charges Mr Cribb, you will be fined $300 together with court costs of $130. You can make time to make arrangements to pay those fines off if you need to.

Judge BR Northwood

District Court Judge

Date of authentication: 01/06/2021

In an electronic form, authenticated pursuant to Rule 2.2(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.

1 Ravelich v Police High Court, Auckland, CRI 2010-485-00037, 29 June 2010.

2 Sharma v Police [2019] NZDC 3075.