‘Perfection is not required’: Damien Grant wins a court fight in a bid to save his career from insolvency

Noted liquidator and columnist Damien Grant won a court battle to have his insolvency license reconsidered after it was rejected due to his criminal record.

The New Zealand Restructuring, Insolvency and Restructuring Association (Ritanz) deemed Grant not a “fit and proper person” when it rejected his application earlier this year.

He requested a judicial review of the decision in Auckland High Court last month.

Today, Judge Matthew Muir issued his sentence and overturned Ritanz’s decision, while ordering the organization to reconsider the request.

Judge Muir had said at the hearing that it was not up to him to determine whether Grant’s character met Ritanz’s requirements, but whether his panel had carried out the process legally.

But the judge also said in his decision today: “Perfection is not required.”

In a statement after the outcome, Grant said it has been an “incredibly difficult experience, both emotionally and financially, for me, my family and my staff.”

“At the heart of our criminal justice system is the belief that those who have failed have the opportunity to redeem themselves, both in the eyes of their family, friends, and in society at large. I have been given this opportunity and I am enormously grateful. “

READ MORE:
• Damien Grant: One chance is all these inmates ask for

Grant served time in prison for fraud and credit card crimes, the last of which was convicted in 1994.

He has 34 convictions for crimes of dishonesty, the first for which he was convicted in December 1987 and February 1988, at which time he was 22 years old.

A second tranche of crimes occurred about six years later and has been described as “stock theft scams.” It involved more serious crimes with the total value of the fraud in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and resulted in convictions for theft, forgery, impersonation for fraud, alteration of a document, conspiracy and other related charges.

Grant’s Ritanz application came about because the Insolvency Professionals Regulation Act went into effect this year, which requires insolvency professionals to be licensed with an accredited organization.

The regulation means that Grant, who is not a chartered accountant but has operated Waterstone Insolvency since 2006, will not be able to continue as an insolvency practitioner without a license.

“I accept that since one of the purposes of the law was to promote integrity among insolvency practitioners, it would be incorrect to suggest that any lower standard of honesty and reliability would be appropriate for insolvency practitioners than lawyers,” said the Judge Muir at his trial. , released this afternoon.

“It cannot be more appropriate to admit in practice a potential liquidator previously convicted of complex fraud than an attorney with similar convictions. However, the jurisprudence with respect to attorneys suggests that there is no immutable impediment in that regard and of the same manner should not be an immutable obstacle to insolvency practitioners. “

Judge Muir said the danger in the panel’s approach to Grant’s application was that in the case of a felony dishonesty, a balancing approach can leave the balance permanently weighted against admission.

“That is not to say that the nature of the crime is not important. Remarkably it is. And, as the Supreme Court recognized, the crime of dishonesty will always be ‘problematic’ in the case of admission to a profession or vocation where honesty is essential. “he added.

“But what is ‘generally’ the position or what could be considered a ‘troublesome’ case does not mean that the door is permanently closed.”

Judge Muir said that on a fair reading of the evidence, backed by Grant’s long history of having “possessed” his criminal past, it would be “difficult to suggest that he had not fully and completely accepted the wrongdoing of his actions.”

“Mr. Grant would not be the first adult to not fully understand why, compared to his youth, he or she had acted like them.”

While in prison, Grant also broadened his studies and completed a business degree after his release.

The judge also said he did not consider the Ritanz panel to be correct in adopting its hindsight lens, criticizing Grant for his apparent “[un]interest in publicly acknowledging the crime until the media threatened to report it. “

“A person can be genuinely sorry for their actions without expressing it in public and, in my opinion, it was wrong to dismiss or minimize their remorse for that reason,” Judge Muir said.

“I think the panel took an approach that focused too much on historical position and placed too little emphasis on Mr. Grant’s reform efforts over 27 years.”

Although he overturned the panel’s decision, Judge Muir said he was not convinced to substitute his own decision and issue an order admitting Grant as a member of Ritanz.

“This could never be described as a clear case. I have already indicated that I regard honesty as a prerequisite for both practice as an insolvency practitioner and practice as a lawyer,” he said.

“The hurdle Mr. Grant had to cross was therefore always high, but not necessarily insurmountable.”

Several of Grant’s supporters were in the courtroom for the one-day hearing, while other high-profile individuals, such as former politician Dr. Don Brash, had written affidavits in support of Grant’s offer.

Following today’s decision, Grant said he was “looking forward to continuing to make a positive contribution to both the insolvency industry and those associated with me and my practice.”