DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Queen v Gore [2020] QDC 264 PARTIES: The Queen v Craig Kirrin Gore (Defendant) FILE NO: 2413/18 DIVISION: Criminal PROCEEDING: Judge alone trial. ORIGINATING Brisbane District Court COURT: DELIVERED ON: 27 October 2020 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 27, 28, 30, 31 July 2020, 4 August 2020. JUDGE: Byrne QC DCJ ORDERS: Special Verdicts: Count 11: I find that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the charge has not been established on the balance of probabilities. I therefore find the defendant not guilty on count 11. All other counts: I find that the jurisdiction of this Court to try the charges has been established on the balance of probabilities. General Verdicts: Count 1: Not guilty Count 2: Not guilty Count 3: Guilty Count 4: Not guilty Count 5: Not guilty Count 6: Not guilty Count 7: Guilty Count 8: Guilty 2 Count 9: Guilty Count 10: Guilty Count 12: Guilty CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – where the defendant applied for a judge alone trial under s 614 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) – where no jury trial orders were made under s 615 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the accused was tried by a judge sitting without jury. CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES –– FRAUD – VERDICT – where the defendant is charged with 11 counts of fraud to the value of $30,000 or more and 1 count of fraud – where the defendant has pleaded not guilty to all charges – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY –– VERDICT – whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt: that the defendant gained a benefit or advantage for another, that the defendant’s conduct was done dishonestly, that the property subject to the charge was of $30,000 or more (excluding count 8). CRIMINAL LAW –– JURISDICTION – SPECIAL VERDICT - where issues of jurisdiction arise on all counts, but are specifically raised on counts 10 and 11 – whether proof of jurisdiction is established through section 12 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – whether the prosecution have proven on the balance of probabilities that the alleged offending occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court. CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS –– PROCEDURE – where the defendant has submitted the evidence raises a mistake of fact issue – where the offences are offences relating to property - whether sections 22 and/or 24 of the Criminal Code (Qld) are available in the circumstances of the case. LEGISLATION: Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 1, s 12, s 22, s 24, s 408C, s 614, s 615, s 644. CASES: Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493. R v Dillon; ex parte Attorney-General [2016] 1 Qd. R. 56. Thompson v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 1. R v WAF and SBN [2010] 1 Qd. R. 370. 3 R v Longford (1970) 17 FLR 37. R v Sitek [1988] 2 Qd. R. 284. R v Perrin [2018] 2 Qd. R. 174. Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378. COUNSEL: Mr. M.J. Copley QC with Ms. D. Younger for the prosecution. Mr. A.J. Glynn QC with Mr M. McCarthy for the defendant. SOLICITORS: Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution. Fisher Dore Lawyers for the defendant. Table of Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................................4 Principles of law ..................................................................................................................9 Onus and standard of proof ..................................................................................................9 Impartiality............................................................................................................................9 Verdict based on evidence...................................................................................................10 Evidence ..............................................................................................................................10 Inferences ............................................................................................................................11 Circumstantial Evidence .....................................................................................................11 No propensity reasoning .....................................................................................................11 Separate Consideration of Charges ....................................................................................12 Remotely received evidence ................................................................................................12 Right to silence....................................................................................................................12 The parties’ cases................................................................................................................13 Factual allegations.............................................................................................................13 Overview..............................................................................................................................13 The complainants ..............................................................................................................16 Dennis Super Fund Pty Ltd – counts 1 to 3.........................................................................16 Wooster Super Fund Pty Ltd – counts 4 to 7.......................................................................20 Bruce Super Fund Pty Ltd – count 8...................................................................................23 Clive Super Fund Pty Ltd – counts 9 and 10.......................................................................24 Russell Family Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd – counts 11 and 12.....................................27 4 Other witnesses..................................................................................................................29 Alison Leanne Pollock.........................................................................................................29 Clinton Kane Buchanan ......................................................................................................30 Russell Green ......................................................................................................................31 Mario Mey...........................................................................................................................31 Edward George Miles Hedge..............................................................................................33 David John Rylah................................................................................................................35 Formal admissions ............................................................................................................35 The defendant’s evidence..................................................................................................37 The parties’ cases ..............................................................................................................37 Consideration.....................................................................................................................38 Special Verdict - Jurisdiction..............................................................................................38 Consideration of counts 1-10 and 12 ..................................................................................40 The prosecution’s particulars......................................................................................40 The availability of sections 22 and/or 24 of the Criminal Code in the circumstances of this prosecution............................................................................................................42 Credit issues, conflicts in the evidence and the reliability of the business records.....42 When did 1835 come into existence?...........................................................................47 The defendant’s knowledge of the financial status of AF and AP/AG.........................49 Is it proven that the defendant caused the benefit or advantage to be gained by the relevant entity or entities? ...........................................................................................51 Is it proven that the defendant acted dishonestly?.......................................................52 Is it proven that the property was of a value of $30,000 or more in each count, other than count 8?................................................................................................................60 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................60 Introduction [1] This is a trial by judge alone. The application for the trial to be conducted in this manner was granted on 26 June 2020. [2] The defendant pleaded not guilty before me to 12 charges, each in similar terms, namely:1 1 The wording reflects the amendments made to counts 1, 4, 5 and 6 after arraignment. Re-arraignment was not sought, nor was it necessary. 5 COUNT 1 Between the eleventh day of July 2013 and the seventeenth day of July 2013 at Southport and elsewhere in the State of Queensland, CRAIG KIRRIN GORE dishonestly gained a benefit or advantage for Arion Financial Pty Ltd (ACN 163 193 253) and/or Arion Property Pty Ltd (ACN 163 361 144) from Dennis Super Fund Pty Ltd. AND the property was of a value of $30,000 or