Gregory Prigg v The King - [2024] VSCA 261

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0222

GREGORY PRIGG	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 October 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 November 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 261
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 1605 (Judge Cahill)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Obtaining financial advantage by deception – Whether judge unfairly intervened to assist prosecution – Whether prosecutor reversed onus of proof – Jury directions – Jury delivering verdict before judge’s redirection – Whether any miscarriage of justice caused by jury delivering verdict before redirection – Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Obtaining financial advantage by deception – Submitting false invoices to employer totalling $680,000 – Aggregate sentence of 3 years, with non-parole period of 2 years – Manifest excess – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Thomson
Respondent:		Mr D Glynn with Mr J O’Connor
Solicitors
Applicant:	Victoria Legal Aid
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA
BOYCE JA:

Between 2009 and 7 April 2017, the applicant was employed as an operations manager at Coastal Bridge, a freight forwarding division of AAW Global Logistics Pty Ltd (‘AAW’). During this period, Coastal Bridge engaged transport contractors to move freight for it; and the applicant’s duties included submitting contractors’ invoices to the accounts department of AAW for payment.
Between 17 April 2013 and 7 April 2017, the applicant submitted 393 false invoices to the AAW accounts department, in the names of transport companies which had not provided any services. The false invoices nominated bank accounts owned or controlled by the applicant (‘the applicant’s bank accounts’) for payment. On the basis of those false invoices, AAW made 257 payments totalling $681,481.21 into the applicant’s bank accounts.
Over 11 days in July and August 2023, the applicant was tried by a judge and jury on 12 charges of obtaining a financial advantage by deception.[1] Each charge was a ‘course of conduct charge’ within the meaning of cl 4A of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The false invoices were grouped by reference to the time of payment and the name of the transport company referred to in each invoice.
[1]Contrary to s 82(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
At trial, the applicant (who gave evidence) did not dispute that he had submitted the false invoices, and accepted that he had obtained a financial advantage — namely, deposits of AAW funds into his bank accounts. He disputed, however, that he had deceived AAW, and disputed that he had acted dishonestly. He testified that AAW had authorised a scheme to enable him to pay kickbacks, in cash and in kind, to customers to win business for Coastal Bridge. He said that a former general manager of AAW (Greg Wormald) told him how…

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 Gregory Prigg v The King

Details

AGLC: Gregory Prigg v The King [2024] VSCA 261
Case: [2024] VSCA 261
Decision Date: 8 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Prigg v The King, the appellant was convicted of obtaining financial advantage by deception, submitting invoices totalling $680,000 to his employer. The appeal concerned both the conviction and the sentence. The appellant argued that the judge unfairly intervened to assist the prosecution, that the prosecutor reversed the onus of proof, and that there was an improper jury direction. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the jury delivered its verdict before the judge’s redirection, potentially causing a miscarriage of justice. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, as was the appeal against sentence.

The central legal issues included whether the judge’s intervention was unfair, if the prosecutor reversed the onus of proof, and whether the jury directions were appropriate. Furthermore, it was considered whether the jury delivering its verdict before the judge’s redirection resulted in any miscarriage of justice. Regarding the sentence, the appellant argued that it was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the judge’s intervention did not unfairly assist the prosecution and that there was no reversal of the onus of proof. The jury directions were deemed adequate, and no miscarriage of justice occurred as the jury’s verdict was not influenced by any alleged errors. Concerning the sentence, the court held that it was not manifestly excessive, given the appellant’s culpability and the nature of the offences. Consequently, the appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Orders