Awatere Huata and husband appeal convictions

Convicted fraudsters Donna Awatere Huata and husband Wi Huata were back in court today, appealing their convictions and sentences.

The couple sat in the public gallery of the Court of Appeal while their lawyers made submissions on their behalf.

Former Act MP Awatere Huata - wearing a red jacket, white trousers and trademark large sunglasses - and Huata - in a black suit and black leather coat - were joined by a number of supporters.

Awatere Huata was sentenced to two years and nine months' jail in September last year, following conviction on five fraud charges in relation to around $80,000 from the Government-funded Pipi Foundation, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

She was paroled last month after less than three months on home detention and nine months in jail.

Wi Huata was convicted on four counts of fraud and one of attempting to pervert the course of justice. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment but bailed until the couple's appeals against conviction.

Wi Huata's lawyer Sanjay Patel today argued that fresh evidence had emerged in a TV3 interview with former Pipi Foundation chairwoman Kathy Skipworth that aired the night the verdicts were handed down.

In the interview she said Awatere Huata told her not to let Wi Huata know how much money was in the accounts and "never to show him any of our bank statements or the book".

Mr Patel submitted this put a new spin on the crown's case, playing down Wi Huata's involvement.

He said it was relevant to the issue of whether Wi Huata had knowledge Pipi funds were being used for illegitimate purposes.

Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway said the interview, which took place before trial, was not fresh evidence and could have been obtained at the time of trial if requested.

He said the transcript was unequivocal.

Justice William Young suggested the evidence was a two-edged sword, as had Mrs Skipworth been asked about that statement at trial she was likely to say the books were hidden from Wi Huata so he didn't put pressure on them to get funds, as she had said similar things.

In another submission Mr Patel said the crown's case was that the jury could infer that because of the marriage and Wi Huata's input into the foundation ledger, he had knowledge of the state of accounts.

Mr Patel said it could not necessarily be inferred that a husband knew the state of his wife's accounts.

"It's just as likely I would know the contents of my wife's wardrobe, every time I open it there's something new," he said.

Awatere Huata's lawyer Jeremy Bioletti told the court there was a physical problem relating to the $11,000 bank cheque Awatere Huata obtained to pay for part of her stomach stapling operation.

The crown case was that money Awatere Huata used to pay for the operation and school fees on one particular day came from $30,000 in $100 bills she got that morning from Mrs Skipworth who cashed a cheque at the bank.

But when Awatere Huata got the $11,000 bank cheque she used only eight $100 notes, with the rest made up of notes of other denominations, Mr Bioletti said.

This would mean she had changed $10,200 into other notes before going to get cheque and there was no evidence of this.

"Mrs Huata is not an alchemist, she can't have changed this money by other means," he said, suggesting any change must have been made at a bank, as $10,200 could not be changed at a supermarket.

Mr Stanaway said it was possible Mrs Skipworth was mistaken about the notes the bank gave her as the bank records indicated $50 and $100 bills were handed over.

He said there were other transactions that day in which 102 $100 bills were used.

Mr Bioletti submitted it was unfair that the lawyers representing the Huatas at their trial were not granted the adjournments they asked for, leaving them insufficient time to prepare.

But Mr Stanaway said the case did not have the hallmarks of a lack of preparation or lack of attention to detail.

He said no amount of preparation time would have assisted in responding to the crown's case and the documentary exhibits.

He said the jury was entitled to arrive at the verdict they did.

Justices William Young, Susan Glazebrook and Lowell Goddard reserved their decision.

- NZPA