R v Armstrong

[2015] QDC 80

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Armstrong & Ors [2015] QDC 80

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(respondent)

v

GARY COLLYER ARMSTRONG
(applicant)

and

ANDREW ERIC YOUNG
(applicant)

and

BRADLEY WENDELL YOUNG
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

1503/14

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Section 590AA application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

16.4.15

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2015

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

The application of Gary Collyer Armstrong for further and better particulars is dismissed.  1.     

The Crown provide further and better particulars to Andrew Eric Young and Bradley Wendell Young as to what discrepancies are said to exist in the information provided to the auditors and how the true financial circumstances of the companies were withheld when audits and financial diligence reports were conducted, and if necessary, identify the documents in question.2.     

In all other respects the applications for further and better particulars of Andrew Eric Young and Bradley Wendell Young are dismissed. 3.     

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE - application for an order

that the Crown be directed to file further and better particulars.

COUNSEL:

Mr Mac Giolla Ri and Ms Hillard for the applicant Armstrong

Ms Bain for the applicant Andrew Young

Mr Minnery for the applicant Bradley Young

Mr Kent QC and Mr Woodford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Russo Lawyers for the applicant Armstrong

Gilshenan and Luton Lawyers for the applicants Andrew Young and Bradley Young

Commonwealth director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. The applicants Gary Collyer Armstrong, Andrew Eric Young and Bradley Wendell Young each are charged with one count of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation and 18 counts of insolvent trading. Andrew Eric Young also faces an additional charge of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation (Count 20).  For ease of reference I will refer to the applicants as “the defendants” and the respondent as “the Crown”.

1. The allegations relate to the Kleenmaid group of companies, and transactions around and prior to that business being placed into voluntary administration.  The primary fraud allegation (count 1) is that a loan was secured in the amount of $13,000,000 in a manner that involved dishonesty. Whether there was dishonesty is in dispute. The insolvent trading charges relate to allegations about specific instances of trading that are said to have occurred when the applicants, who were alleged to be directors of the company relevant to each charge, suspected that the company in question was insolvent or would become insolvent.

The applications

1. Each of the defendants applies to the court for orders that the Crown be directed to file further and better particulars.

History

1. The legal representatives for Armstrong have provided the following chronology to the court which is not the subject of challenge as to its accuracy:

(a)        Prior to the global financial crisis, the Kleenmaid Corporate Group experienced financial difficulty, and ultimately went into administration in 2009;

(b)        There were a number of subgroups associated with the Kleenmaid Corporate Group including EDIS Service Logistics Pty Ltd (“EDIS”);

(c)        Bradley Young and Armstrong are…