THE KING v JULIE CLARKE (a pseudonym) (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:
SC425/25 DC1855/23
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
ORIGINATING
District Court at Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:
3 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
28 November 2023; 5 December 2023; 29 January 2024; 9 February 2024; 23 February 2024; 26 April 2024; 14 June 2024; 15 July 2024; 22 July 2024; 2 September 2024; 18 September 2024; 20 September 2024; 8, 9, 10, 11 October 2024; 5 November 2024; 5 December 2024, 10 December 2024, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 December 2024; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 February 2025; 19 February 2025; 10 March 2025; 14 March 2025; 9 April 2025; 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 May 2025; 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 May 2025; 13 June 2025; 20 June 2025; 27 June 2025; 4 July 2025. Further written submissions of CDPP dated 10 July 2025. Further written submissions of the defendant dated 13 July 2025.
JUDGE:
Smith J
ORDER:
I stay the prosecution.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – Abuse of process – whether compulsory taxation interview breached the defendant’s right to silence – whether prosecution should be stayed – where part of the true purpose of the interview was to use it in the criminal investigation against the defendant – whether the interview was involuntary and/or unfair – where the defendant was subjected to two prosecutions one of which was discontinued and if so is there an abuse of process – whether there was a case to answer on the State fraud prosecution – whether there has been oppression on the part of the prosecution – whether the ATO/CDPP complied with their disclosure obligations – whether the ATO officer altered an exhibit – whether ATO
officers engaged in misconduct concerning disclosure and other matters – whether the conduct has brought the administration of justice into disrepute
[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 R v Clarke (a pseudonym) (No 9)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Clarke (a pseudonym) (No 9) [2025] QSCPR 17
Case
[2025] QSCPR 17
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Clarke (No 9) involved the defendant who was accused of ATO fraud and misappropriating funds from the Biomedical Accelerator. The defendant, a director and majority shareholder of companies created to develop and market a therapeutic product, claimed that the prosecution was brought for a collateral purpose and that she was falsely prosecuted for misappropriating $185,000. The defendant argued that any dispute arising between her and the Biomedical Accelerator was commercial in nature, not criminal. The defendant also raised the issue of the validity of the prosecution for the ATO fraud and sought a stay of the prosecution based on the administration of justice being brought into disrepute.
The court had to decide whether the prosecution should be stayed based on the compulsory interview and evidence obtained from the defendant. The defendant argued that the compulsory interview fundamentally altered the judicial process and that the case of Strickland was on all fours with the present case. The court had to consider whether the administration of justice was brought into disrepute and whether the compulsory interview and evidence obtained from the defendant should be excluded.
The court considered the defendant's submissions and decided to stay the prosecution. The court found that if it had not ordered a stay, it would exclude the compulsory interview and all of the evidence obtained by Mr Rains during his investigation and all of the evidence obtained by search warrants and any evidence relying on that evidence. The court found that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute and that the compulsory interview and evidence obtained from the defendant should be excluded.
The court stayed the prosecution and made it clear that if it had not ordered a stay, it would exclude the compulsory interview and all of the evidence obtained by Mr Rains during his investigation and all of the evidence obtained by search warrants and any evidence relying on that evidence.
Orders
Orders of the court
I stay the prosecution.
Background
Background to the litigation
Paragraph 3 of the submission relates to the validity of the prosecution for the ATO fraud. As the CDPP has not consented to the matter being argued on the depositions, I do not propose to deal with those issues. Background By way of background, the defendant submits that she was a director and majority shareholder of companies created to develop and market a safe, non-invasive therapeutic product using a compound that naturally induces and sustains human metabolic ketosis. She registered IP companies on the advice of the BA and Mr Murdoch. Venika was set up to exploit the drug in respect of the treatment of cancer. The core activities listed were to develop an improved method of manufacture for DBH that would produce a NCE to be used as an ingredient for four therapeutic indications safe for human consumption. The defendant refers to her background in sales. She says that a clinical trial was planned for late 2015 but did not proceed at that point. In June 2016, she first contacted the BA seeking a funder for cancer trials. The BA were not interested in advancing the cancer IP but would consider her if she developed a weight loss drug. Two pilot studies were conducted in October and November 2016 and the BA invested $185,000. The initial trials were promising. It is submitted that Ms Bagnato, Mr Challans and Mr Rains in their evidence all acknowledged that the defendant intended to conduct clinical trials. It is also submitted the ATO knew that she was conducting research studies through UQ, and through her companies engaged others to develop and manufacture a patentable human safe version of the DBH to use as an ingredient. They also knew she had imported a shipment of the raw materials to be used in the clinical trials. She submits that the State fraud charge was brought for a collateral purpose, namely for the BA to get their money back. She submits she was falsely prosecuted for misappropriating $185,000 when the BA was aware the money was spent legitimately. The defendant submits that any dispute arising between herself, or Venika, and the BA is ultimately commercial in nature, not criminal. Compulsorily obtained material The defendant submits that a court has the power to grant a stay where the administration of justice is brought into disrepute. The courts must protect their integrity and fairness. The defendant submits that the case of Strickland28 is on all fours with the present case. She submits that the High Court decided that a defendant who has already been compelled to reveal his or her account compulsorily can no longer decide the course which he or she should adopt at any subsequent trial. It is submitted that this principle applies at all stages of the trial process, whether charged or not.[29] She submits that even if her answers are kept secret, the requirement to give answers fundamentally alters the judicial process.[30] [29] Strickland [2018] HCA 53; (2018) 266 CLR 325at [101]. [30] X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29; (2013) 248 CLR 92 at [124].
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Finally, I make it clear that if I had not ordered a stay, I would exclude the compulsory interview and all of the evidence obtained by Mr Rains during his investigation and all of the evidence obtained by search warrants and any evidence relying on that evidence. CONCLUSION Exhibit P2 (JV089).