Lombard four lose bid to recall Supreme Court ruling on convictions

Sir Douglas Graham and his fellow Lombard directors have lost a “misconceived” bid to recall a Supreme Court decision over their convictions.

Graham, former Justice Minister Bill Jeffries, former PR man for the Queen Lawrie Bryant, and Lombard director Michael Reeves were convicted of making untrue statements in company offer documents before the firm’s failure.

Their convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court in 2013 refused leave to challenge them.

But the Lombard four continued their fight and applied to recall that Supreme Court decision. That bid was dismissed yesterday. The recall application was based on a claim that the Supreme Court would have taken the case if it had known the convictions were founded on evidence which had not been formally proved. Three other related grounds were also advanced in the bid.

The evidence in question was a schedule of spreadsheets prepared by Crown expert witness Michelle Peden. It was not produced in evi- dence but provided to Queen’s Counsel Colin Carruthers for his closing address to High Court Justice Robert Dobson. But the Supreme Court yesterday said it was satisfied the grounds on which the application was based were “all misconceived”.

“In refusing leave to appeal against conviction, the court was well aware that the Peden schedule had not been produced as a Crown exhibit or proved in evidence . . . there is no injustice to the applicants in the fact that the schedule was not produced as an exhibit,” the court said.

Chief Justice Sian Elias and Justices William Young and Susan Glazebrook said there had been a “substantial mischaracterisation” of what happened at trial.

“More generally, the recall application is very much a second shot, based in large measure on arguments which, if meritorious, could and should have been, but were not, advanced when leave to appeal was first sought,” the judges said. “In the result, counsel for the Crown have been required to chase a series of hares which the applicant ought never to have started.”

The court is considering whether the Lombard four should pay costs for their application.