[mouse]

"The court of Appeal today overturned the conviction of a businessman jailed for defrauding ACC of nearly $400,00 and ordered a new trial.

Ronald Frederick donaldson of Waihi Beach was originally jailed for three years and ordered to repay the money.

He started receiving ACC in 1988 after injuring his back.

The Cown alleged that he claimed to be earing $170.00 a week as a part time cleaner, while actually working full time in his own businesses.

Donaldson's lawyers argued that the trial judge misled the jury about what constitutes ACC fraud, and jurors were prejudiced by a simplistic power point slide show.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a retrial."

Quote

Court orders new trial for ACC fraud accused
09 December 2004

A millionaire accused of accident compensation fraud is to have a new trial.

The Court of Appeal at Wellington today granted a new trial to Ronald Frederick Donaldson, 62, of Waihi.

The court suppressed the reasons for its decision.

Donaldson stood trial in Hamilton District Court a year ago, accused of lying to ACC for eight years about the extent of the work he was performing while receiving compensation owing to a back injury.

He was in February sentenced to three years' jail and ordered to pay $380,000 reparation.

However, the Court of Appeal today overturned the decision and ordered a retrial.

Donaldson was accused of committing one of New Zealand's largest ACC frauds totalling nearly $500,000 between 1991 and 1998.

He was found guilty by a jury last year of 43 charges of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage from ACC between July 31, 1991 and September 27, 1999.

He was found not guilty of 35 charges between 1988 and June 1991.

The Crown said Donaldson worked nearly full-time over 10 years from 1988 when he received ACC compensation.

In sentencing Donaldson in February, Judge Robert Wolff accepted that Donaldson suffered an injury but the issue was whether or not he was entitled to claim the benefit.

Judge Wolff summed up Donaldson's offending as "defrauding by inertia".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/bayofplenty/0,2106,...22a6663,00.html

[Paradigm Shift]

last year Ronald Donaldson was convicted of fraud by the ACC and sentenced to three years in prison. Yesterday in the Court of Appeal his conviction was set-aside.

Ronald was an injured welder who had owned and operated his own business. After his injury he worked 20 hours per week and had an abatement of earnings. Essentially the ACC being jealous that he had sold his business for a significant profit and simply deemed that he must not be allowed to have innings related compensation. They set about deprecating evidence in a dishonest fashion then put on a glitzy trial to tear this invalid apart.

The ACC had not even carried out the most basic legislator procedure, a work capacity assessment. There was no vocational assessment nor medical assessment to determine the end of his entitlements. He had had no review hearing regarding the end of his incapacity and entitlements.he was convicted based on the allegation that he had no entitlements because he made profit beyond the 20 hours per week from which he was an earner and he was working. profit is not earnings but income. Income derived from profit is not insured and therefore of no relevance to the corporation.

This case clearly demonstrates earnings related compensation is insurance for earnings and not profit.

Ronald is now a freeman. Obviously he will sue the ACC for a sum consistent with the destruction of his reputation.

Fraud is not an exit option for the ACC in such cases without determining an end of incapacity. Hopefully we will get other wrong fraud convictions overturned as well.

The Court of Appeal decision will be posted in the judgement section.

[MG]

Didn't the CA order a retrial and hasn't ACC confirmed it will go after Mr Donaldson again?
IMHO, this case shows how utterly vindictive ACC is and how desperately its upper echelons need a clean out.
BTW, at least one ACC executive did time for fraud.

[hukildaspida]

mouse, on Dec 8 2004, 02:48 PM, said:

"The court of Appeal today overturned the conviction of a businessman jailed for defrauding ACC of nearly $400,00 and ordered a new trial.

Ronald Frederick donaldson of Waihi Beach was originally jailed for three years and ordered to repay the money.

He started receiving ACC in 1988 after injuring his back.

The Cown alleged that he claimed to be earing $170.00 a week as a part time cleaner, while actually working full time in his own businesses.

Donaldson's lawyers argued that the trial judge misled the jury about what constitutes ACC fraud, and jurors were prejudiced by a simplistic power point slide show.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a retrial."

Does anyone know how this ended?

[MG]

I believe Mr D was acquitted and ACC ordered to reinstate (and repay) weekly compensation. Interestingly, alleged prosecutorial misconduct forms the basis of a much-awaited Supreme Court decision in a case of ACC "fraud". I refer to "R v Stewart", about which other members of this forum know much more than I. From my limited perspective, it seems fairly easy for prosecutors to obtain convictions against ACC claimants because of (a) the vague, and therefore unsatisfactory, nature of the offence of "using a document to obtain an advantage", (b) popular, meaning jury, prejudice against claimants (on the "everyone on ACC is a bludger" line); © the complexity of ACC law relating to entitlement to weekly compensation; (d) resulting ignorance of the law and unwillingness to discover it by trial judges; (e) duplicitous testimony by ACC staff, with copious use of ACC forms to incriminate; (f) the malign work of private investigators who are never called to testify but, instead, dig up dirt and compel witnesses to testify against claimants. It all reminds me of the feelings I experienced after seeing Arthur Miller's classic play, "The Crucible", first live and second, on film. "The Crucible", as the arty-farty among you will be aware, is ostensibly about witch-hunts in 17th century Puritan America but, in fact, about witch hunts, against "communists", in 20th century Puritan America. While 21st century Puritan America is currently engaged in witch hunts against "terrorists", here in NZ our bureaucracy is engaged in witch hunts against disabled bludgers. IMHO, that is.

[Alan Thomas]

MG's perception of the ACC approach to prosecuting an ACC fraud cases is substantially correct.

I had a little bit to do with the Mr Donaldson case in as much as I was able to glean case law from this site and assemble the materials necessary for his appeal which of course was successful in the hands of a QC . He and his wife visited my home in his BMW at which time we shared our experiences.

Mr Donaldson's case, as do many, parallels to my own in as much as the ACC relies upon my case in order to achieve these prosecution in the first instance, as has been the habit of the ACC from 1997.

Mr Donaldson worked as the roustabout for the company he owned 90% of the shares. He paid himself the modest earnings other roustabout 20 hours per week for doing about 20 hours worth of work per week. The ACC prosecuted when he sold his business for $2.2 million. The ACC viewpoint was that if he was able to increase the value of the company he owned so much he was worth a lot more than what he was paying himself. The ACC relied upon the minor partner who was managing the company, who was clearly jealous that he did not receive the substantial rewards consistent with the actual shareholding of the company when sold.

Mr Donaldson is far from a bludger but rather one of New Zealand's hero captains of industry, the type of person from whos ingenuity and determination creates New Zealand's wealth that pays the ACC bludger employees who fail to comprehend or to what they duties of their terms of employment.

Mr Donaldson's case was of a value slightly higher than mine lasting about four weeks in the court. Mine was the second-largest value but lasting seven weeks in the criminal court providing me with a unique insight into the ACC doctrine of belief in regards to ACC fraud prosecutions.

[Tattoo]

Mr D wasn't trying to hide from ACC the fact he was working and earning. No doubt his GP was aware of this as well when providing the certificates. Difficult to see where the fraud is.

[DARRELLGEMMA]

hukildaspida, on Mar 23 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

Does anyone know how this ended?

Hi hukildaspida it is Darrell here. The crown at the start of Mr Donaldson's retrial offered no evidence & the judge tossed out the charges. I believe Mr Donaldson should go after ACC for malicious prosecution. In other words they fabricated there own case to get a conviction the court of appeal ruled that the convictions were unsafe.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce

[J. Bloggs]

Alan Thomas, on Mar 23 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

MG's perception of the ACC approach to prosecuting an ACC fraud cases is substantially correct.

I had a little bit to do with the Mr Donaldson case in as much as I was able to glean case law from this site and assemble the materials necessary for his appeal which of course was successful in the hands of a QC . He and his wife visited my home in his BMW at which time we shared our experiences.

Mr Donaldson's case, as do many, parallels to my own in as much as the ACC relies upon my case in order to achieve these prosecution in the first instance, as has been the habit of the ACC from 1997.

Mr Donaldson worked as the roustabout for the company he owned 90% of the shares. He paid himself the modest earnings other roustabout 20 hours per week for doing about 20 hours worth of work per week. The ACC prosecuted when he sold his business for $2.2 million. The ACC viewpoint was that if he was able to increase the value of the company he owned so much he was worth a lot more than what he was paying himself. The ACC relied upon the minor partner who was managing the company, who was clearly jealous that he did not receive the substantial rewards consistent with the actual shareholding of the company when sold.

Mr Donaldson is far from a bludger but rather one of New Zealand's hero captains of industry, the type of person from whos ingenuity and determination creates New Zealand's wealth that pays the ACC bludger employees who fail to comprehend or to what they duties of their terms of employment.

Mr Donaldson's case was of a value slightly higher than mine lasting about four weeks in the court. Mine was the second-largest value but lasting seven weeks in the criminal court providing me with a unique insight into the ACC doctrine of belief in regards to ACC fraud prosecutions.

Excuse me for stating the obvious, but Donaldson is innocent, Thomas is Guilty!
Donaldson never concealed his business activities from ACC, nor the fact he was working and receiving income. Donaldson did not mislead his doctor or ACC in any way.
To the contrary, Thomas has deceived and mislead to this present day; and has been found guilty by the courts of dishonesty.
The are no parallels in these two cases, save to say that the dishonesty displayed by Thomas and his subsequent "soft" conviction by the Criminal Court has lead ACC to believe they can easily gain convictions; and that the Thomas case reinforces the stereotype that ACC claimants are "dishonest bludgers".

[Alan Thomas]

J.Bloogs it is your type of frenzied fanaticism that the ACC rely upon to secure these prosecutions. My case and the Donaldson case is much the same in as much as there was no actual information for the ACC to have made a decision.

In the Donaldson case and my case we were both accused of working beyond what we have described. In my case the ACC had been given no direction from the court recently to disclose the particular work task activities they relied upon at the material times. Again they simply wave your arms about in an impressionist fashion again speaking in platitudesrather like you are doing J.Bloogs.

The end of incapacity is not mentioned by people's impressions but by objective information from medical professionals. Actual work earnings is measured by other sorts of professionals rather than easily led and emotional people such as J. Boogs.

Mr Donaldson is now very busy focusing on the enjoyment of his retirement

[Sparrow]

do you think we are going to swallow that rubbish TOmo?
I would not think a wealthy business man would turn to you for advice and legal help?
Especially when you have been convicted of your crimes.

Mr Donaldon's case has no bearing on yours and as usual, you use every case to meet your needs. However, the Judges are not that stupid.
perhaps you can dream up something else now??

Also remember, you are breaching this man's Privacy and that is punishable by law. You would be best to stay away from the Forum till your case is over would you not?

[Alan Thomas]

Sparrow
From Mr Donaldson's prison cell he turned to me for advice. Mr Donaldson's lawyer telephoned me seeking an understanding of the ACC Act and the relevant case law. I was more than happy to assist. I was assisted by another member on this site, Ivan or otherwise known as Ernie. The information I provided was passed on to a QC.

The ACC rationale for many fraud cases is based on the conviction they achieved in my case. Again and again the ACC rationale is thrown out in the higher courts as being ill-conceived and wrong. For example in the Supreme Court in the Hayes case the ACC understanding of the law of which they use my case as their supporting case law was confirmed as wrong.

With the Donaldson case ACC also relied upon my case as their supporting case law which was found to be ill-conceived and wrong and as such the Donaldson case is intricately woven with mine.

Sparrow the ACC have involved my case with a very large number of ACC fraud cases and as such my opinion is relevant to these cases as proven with the Donaldson case and others like it. The Supreme Court judges are not as stupid as you are portraying them to be.

Criminal court cases including the appeals do not enjoy privacy and for the reasons of greater clarification of points of law it is necessary that they are public, as in this public discussion and as such we are not breaching Mr Donaldson's privacy.

This is also the reason why my case together with other cases by the ACC have deemed to be some such as the Donaldson case are widely discussed in this public forum so as we may help one another. Without this forum we can be absolutely certain that Mr Donaldson would not have got out of prison and would have remained as a convicted criminal along with numerous that is that this forum has also rescued.

Sparrow it appears that your thoughts are somewhat disorganised whereby you are making your decision is emotionally rather than in reliance upon actual facts and points of law. Your behaviour is not helpful to the intention of the site to help one another secure their entitlements and even liberty.

[J. Bloggs]

Alan Thomas, on Mar 24 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

Sparrow
From Mr Donaldson's prison cell he turned to me for advice. Mr Donaldson's lawyer telephoned me seeking an understanding of the ACC Act and the relevant case law. I was more than happy to assist. I was assisted by another member on this site, Ivan or otherwise known as Ernie. The information I provided was passed on to a QC.

More Thomas fantasising.
The dates for imprisonment for Thomas do not coincide with the brief period Donaldson may have spent in jail.
Furthermore, since the Thomas criminal trial and the fiasco Thomas made of the defence, including allegations against his own lawyer, no self respecting lawyer will come within 10km of Mr Thomas - which is maybe why he reamains unrepresented to this day?

[Alan Thomas]

J.Bloogs
You have got your panties all bunched up again.
The prison allowed a telephone conversation between Mr Donaldson and myself. I sent on the case law to him which he sent on to his lawyer who then contacted me and then we went from there.

As Mr Donaldson was financially very well off he had access to the best lawyers in New Zealand. I am the other hand had to content myself with five hours pre-trial funding from legal aid lawyer who did not protect a principal witness who came to New Zealand with the result that she was deported at the suggestion of the ACC with the ACC claiming that she did not have any evidence to provide. Essentially I was left undefended. The appeal Court has agreed with the result that these proceedings are going to continue concerning my appeal after the ACC has made disclosure and at the end of the civil proceedings under way at this moment.

J.Bloog it is apparent that you are completely inexperienced with the ACC fraud unit and the manner in which they conduct business. Perhaps they will be teaching your thing or two over the coming months in regards to your own case.

[StrontiumDog]

For what its worth I can confirm Alan's involvement with Mr Donaldsons case as I met Mr Donaldson at Alan's place. I think it was 2004. I was there when he was helping me with my Distict Court appeal. Credit where credit is due please.

S_dog

[Sparrow]

SD did you win??

[Alan Thomas]

Sparrow this thread is about the merits of the Donaldson case. Please try to resist blogging

[J. Bloggs]

Alan Thomas, on Mar 24 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

Sparrow this thread is about the merits of the Donaldson case. Please try to resist blogging

Excuse me for stating the obvious, but Donaldson is innocent, Thomas is Guilty!
Donaldson never concealed his business activities from ACC, nor the fact he was working and receiving income. Donaldson did not mislead his doctor or ACC in any way.
To the contrary, Thomas has deceived and mislead to this present day; and has been found guilty by the courts of dishonesty.
The are no parallels in these two cases, save to say that the dishonesty displayed by Thomas and his subsequent "soft" conviction by the Criminal Court has lead ACC to believe they can easily gain convictions; and that the Thomas case reinforces the stereotype that ACC claimants are "dishonest bludgers".

[Sparrow]

excuse me! I thought this thread was about the Tomas saga.
Like every thread is!!!

[Alan Thomas]

This thread is about the merits of the Donaldson case.
Please try to resist blogging.