Legal Research
Cases
Gant v The Queen

Gant v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 104 8 May 2017

Appeal

Unreasonable verdict

Obtaining financial advantage by deception

Attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0230

PETER STANLEY GANT	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

S APCR 2016 0231

MOHAMED AMAN SIDDIQUE	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, PRIEST and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 April 2017
DATE OF ORDERS:	27 April 2017
DATE OF REASONS:	8 May 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 104
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Gant (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Croucher J, 4–8, 11–15, 18–22, 26–29 April, 2–6, 9–12 May 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Obtaining financial advantage by deception (2 counts), attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception (1 count) – Circumstantial case – Sale of allegedly fake Brett Whiteley paintings pursuant to joint criminal enterprise – Judge gave invitation to jury in accordance with R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161 – Jury rejected invitation and entered verdicts of guilty – Appeals conceded by Crown – Whether jury must have entertained reasonable doubt regarding applicants’ guilt – Whether inference of guilt only reasonable inference available on evidence – R v Baden-Clay (2016) 90 ALJR 1013, 1020–1 [46]–[48], 1023–4 [65]–[66], referred to – Appeals allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant in S APCR 2016 0230	Mr T E Wraight QC with Ms F H Todd	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Applicant in S APCR 2016 0231	Mr R van de Wiel QC with Mr J A Ribbands	James Dowsley & Associates Pty Ltd
For the Respondent	Mr D D Gurvich QC with Mr J Gullaci	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA
PRIEST JA
McLEISH JA:

After a five week trial, the applicants, Peter Stanley Gant and Mohamed Aman Siddique, were each convicted on two charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception[1] and one charge of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception.[2] Gant was sentenced to a total of 5 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. Siddique was sentenced to a total of 3 years’ imprisonment, of which all but 10 months was suspended. Each sought leave to appeal on the ground that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.[3]
[1]See Crimes Act 1958 s 82(1).
[2]See ibid ss 82(1), 321M.
[3]See Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 276(1)(a).

Late in the afternoon of the day before the hearing of the applications, the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Court, with conspicuous fairness, that he would concede the ground of each appeal.[4] For the reasons that follow, we accepted that concession (which reflected the provisional view to which each of us had come before the hearing), quashed the convictions and ordered that verdicts of acquittal be entered for each applicant.
[4]We observed at the hearing that, while the concession was of course welcome, its late timing was a matter of considerable regret.

The Crown case

The Crown case, in broad terms, was that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gant v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Gant v The Queen [2017] VSCA 104
Case: [2017] VSCA 104
Decision Date: 8 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gant v The Queen involved two appellants who were convicted of obtaining financial advantage by deception, as well as attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. The appellants were part of a joint criminal enterprise that involved the sale of allegedly fake Brett Whiteley paintings. The Crown conceded the appeals, and the primary issue before the court was whether the jury must have entertained reasonable doubt regarding the applicants' guilt, and whether the inference of guilt was the only reasonable inference available on the evidence.

The court examined the evidence presented and the circumstances under which the jury reached their verdict. The trial judge had given the jury an invitation in accordance with R v Prasad, which allowed the jury to consider whether the evidence was so unsatisfactory or unreliable that it should not be acted upon. However, the jury rejected this invitation and entered verdicts of guilty against the appellants. The court considered whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, and whether it was open to the court to conclude that no reasonable jury could have found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court referred to R v Baden-Clay and held that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

The court found that the inference of guilt was not the only reasonable inference available on the evidence, and that the jury must have entertained reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' guilt. The court allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions. The reasoning of the court was based on the unreliability of the evidence presented and the need for the jury to have entertained reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the appellants. The court held that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and that the appeals should be allowed. This decision highlights the importance of the reliability of evidence in criminal cases and the need for juries to carefully consider all the evidence before reaching a verdict.

Orders