Waikato couple who orchastrated migrant worker rort found guilty

A couple who orchestrated a migrant worker rort have been found guilty of helping 16 people unlawfully enter New Zealand and breach their visitor visas.

The court previously heard how the Papua New Guinea workers paid Antony Swarbrick and Christina Kewa-Swarbrick more than $1000 to come to New Zealand for seasonal work in 2016.

One worker said he was “from the village” and just filled out whatever visa forms he was given for the opportunity.

When work started one person got $135 for a week’s effort at a Hawke’s Bay vineyard.

But the couple argued it was “training” and the migrants knew they were coming to learn how to live a better life and be exposed to New Zealand culture.

Judge Robert Spear said, in his summing up, the couple had noble intentions, but it was badly organised and in reality they’d broken the law.

Swarbrick and Kewa-Swarbrick were found guilty of eight representative immigration-related charges after a five-week jury trial in Hamilton District Court.

They were convicted of helping the migrants complete visitor visas when the intention was to work, for unlawfully helping them enter New Zealand, and for helping them breach visas conditions by working in Cambridge and Hawke’s Bay.

The couple was released on bail and would be sentenced in March.

On Friday – the final day of the trial – Martha Fretton, whose company contracted workers out to the vineyard, changed her plea to guilty.

She was convicted of one representative charge of helping the 16 Papua New Guinea nationals breach their visitor visa by working, for material gain, and would be sentenced in March.

Crown prosecutor Kaleb Whyte said, in his closing statement, this was a scheme constructed to breach immigration laws in New Zealand.

Whyte said it didn’t matter whether the programme was an RSE scheme or Kewa-Swarbrick’s Global 4040 exposure programme – the couple always intended the migrants would work.

“[The migrants] signed up to work, they paid to work, and they waited years to work. The bottom line is they did not come solely for exposure.”

It was simply a name change with the same intent, he said.

He referenced emails mentioning work in New Zealand starting in 2014, with the last in April 2016 saying employment was secured.

“The simple fact is though all those words were thrown around, they were never told they were not coming to work. They were not told that because they were.”

“The intention, the Crown says, could not be clearer. They were coming to work and the Swarbricks were just going to call it training.”

Whyte said calling work training, and pay an allowance did not make it legal.

“[Christina] can word smith all she wants, it does not change what it was.”

Swarbrick’s lawyer Mark Jepson said, in his closing statement, that his client and Kewa-Swarbrick were trying to help the migrants and received no financial gain.

He said they’d put the Papua New Guinea people up in their house, clothed them, fed them, paid for further accommodation and did activities – to their financial detriment.

So why did they do it, he asked the jury. He suggested it was spiritual for Kewa-Swarbrick and she wanted to help people.

“What else could the reason possibly be?”

Jepson told the jury that his client had no intention to mislead.

Kewa-Swarbrick’s lawyer Jared Bell, in his closing statement, said the 4040 programme had not just been thought up on the spot, it was legitimate.

The people were to come to New Zealand to be exposed to the culture and learn skills, so they could come back at another time and work.

He said Kewa-Swarbrick had done lots of charitable work, and wanted to help the Papua New Guinea people.