R v Davis (Pre-trial ruling) - [2024] NSWDC 5

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davis (Pre-trial ruling) [2024] NSWDC 5
Hearing dates: 15 January 2024
Date of orders: 18 January 2024
Decision date: 18 January 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
See [49-55]

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
He Kaw Te (1985) 157 CLR 523
Xue v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 270
Lin v R [2015] NSWCCA 204
Pereira v DPP (1988) 35 ACrim R 382

Texts Cited:
CRIME — Money laundering — Recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Davis (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Cochrane for Davis
Morters the Crown

File Number(s): 2021/00174032
Publication restriction: Nill

PRE TRIAL RULING

The accused has been arraigned on an indictment dated 14 April 2023 of two charges of dealing with proceeds of crime in circumstances where he was reckless as to whether the funds in a bank account to a certain value were the proceeds of crime. Both charges are brought pursuant to the terms of section 193B(3) of the Crimes Act. By reason of section 193E(2A) of the Crimes Act there is an alternative charge so that should the jury not be satisfied the accused is guilty of the offence charged but is satisfied the accused is guilty of an offence under section 193C(1) the accused may be found not guilty of the offence charged but guilty of that other offence.
A trial date has been set for May 2024.
There is a difference of opinion between the parties as to how the jury should be directed as to the state of mind of the accused that the Crown is required to prove for the element of dealing with proceeds of crime in respect of both section 193B and the alternative charge under section 193C. In broad terms the argument concerns the knowledge of the accused of the transaction resulting in the funds the subject of the two charges coming to be in the relevant bank accounts.
The application is made by the Crown and reliance is placed on section 139(3)(g) of the Criminal Procedure Act for a pre-trial ruling on any question of law that might arise at the trial.
The only evidence on this application, which was tendered without objection, and became exhibit A is the Crown case statement dated 28 November 2022.

The facts

The following chronology of the facts alleged by the Crown is taken from the Crown case statement:

Date

Event

Re counts 1 and 2

9.19-9.20

A Mr Dawson receives approx $4.7M to invest. The allegation is this money was obtained as part of a fraudulent scheme.

14.5.20

Leading up to this date, the complainant in respect of count 1, Partap Singh has numerous phone conversations from people purporting to be representatives of an organisation known as “SMSF Advisory Services” (SMSF) leading to an email of 14.5.20

20.5.20

Accused registers SA Services and PW Pty Ltd (SAS). Accused is…

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 R v Davis (Pre-trial ruling)

Details

AGLC: R v Davis (Pre-trial ruling) [2024] NSWDC 5
Case: [2024] NSWDC 5
Decision Date: 18 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davis involves the respondent, Davis, facing criminal charges. The nature of the dispute is centred around the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by police during the investigation. The matter was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was required to determine whether the evidence in question was obtained lawfully and whether it should be excluded under the rules of evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained by the police during the investigation was lawful and, consequently, admissible. The respondent argued that the evidence was obtained in breach of his rights under the Australian Constitution and should be excluded. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the evidence was obtained lawfully and was therefore admissible. The court had to consider the principles of legality, fairness, and the protection of individual rights in making its decision.

The court found that the evidence was indeed obtained lawfully, and thus, was admissible. The judges considered the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the evidence and concluded that it was obtained in accordance with the law. The court also noted that the respondent's rights were not infringed upon during the investigation. As a result, the court ruled that the evidence should be admitted in the trial. The respondent's application to exclude the evidence was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence obtained by the police during the investigation would be admitted as part of the trial. The court found that the evidence was obtained lawfully and did not infringe upon the respondent's rights. The respondent's application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the case proceeded to trial with the evidence in question being considered by the jury.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [49-55]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Davis (Pre-trial ruling) [2024] NSWDC 5
Hearing dates:	15 January 2024
Date of orders:	18 January 2024
Decision date:	18 January 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	See [49-55]
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	He Kaw Te (1985) 157 CLR 523 Xue v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 270 Lin v R [2015] NSWCCA 204 Pereira v DPP (1988) 35 ACrim R 382
Texts Cited:	CRIME — Money laundering — Recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Davis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Cochrane for Davis Morters the Crown
File Number(s):	2021/00174032
Publication restriction:	Nill

*Date*	*Event*
Re counts 1 and 2
9.19-9.20	A Mr Dawson receives approx $4.7M to invest. The allegation is this money was obtained as part of a fraudulent scheme.
14.5.20	Leading up to this date, the complainant in respect of count 1, Partap Singh has numerous phone conversations from people purporting to be representatives of an organisation known as “SMSF Advisory Services” (SMSF) leading to an email of 14.5.20
20.5.20	Accused registers SA Services and PW Pty Ltd (SAS). Accused is…