Legal Research
Cases
R v Dowding

R v Dowding

Case [2000] VSC 439 25 October 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION	Restricted

No.1420 of 1999

THE QUEEN

BRUCE DOWDING
BRUNO GROLLO
RINO GROLLO

---

JUDGE:	Teague, J.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16, 17, 19 October 2000
DATE OF RULING:	25 October 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bruce Dowding, Bruno Grollo and Rino Grollo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 439

---

Ruling: Crimes Act s. 86(7) – Application to dismiss charge of conspiracy -
Application for severance of substantive offence counts - Considerations.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	L. Robberds QC D. Maguire P. Sest	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused (B.Dowding) For the Accused (B.Grollo) For the Accused (R.Grollo)	J. Judd QC M. Taft C. Heliotis QC G. Lyon T. Forrest QC Dr S. Tudor	Aronold Bloch Leibler

HIS HONOUR:

Sub-section 86(7) of the Crimes Act 1914, introduced in 1995, provides:

"A court may dismiss a charge of conspiracy if it thinks that the interests of justice require it to do so."

These are my reasons for ruling as I have done on yet another set of pre-trial applications made on behalf of the accused. The first application in the set was made on behalf of the accused Dowding. It had two limbs to it. The first limb was an application under ss.86(7) to dismiss the charge of conspiracy against him. The second was to sever the hearing of the conspiracy charge from the hearing of the substantive charges against Dowding in the indictment. After I ruled that I would not grant the application for dismissal, but would grant the application for severance, an application was made on behalf of the accused Bruno Grollo and Rino Grollo under ss.86(7). I ruled that I would not grant that application.

The indictment as it stood prior to the applications read as follows:

"Count 1
The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, who prosecutes in this behalf for Her Majesty the Queen, INFORMS THE COURT AND CHARGES THAT during a period between the 1^st day of June 1981 and the 8^th day of July 1987 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria BRUCE IVAR DOWDING, BRUNO GORDANO GROLLO AND RINO JOHN GROLLO did conspire with each other to defraud the Commonwealth of income tax by concealing profits derived by Grofam Proprietary Limited as trustee of the Grofam Unit Trust from the construction of the Rialto development in respect of the income years ending 30 June 1983 and 30 June 1984, contrary to paragraph 86(1)(e) of the Crimes Act 1914 until the 24^th day of October 1984, and thereafter, contrary to section 86A of the Crimes Act 1914.
Count 2
And the said DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, INFORMS THE COURT AND CHARGES that on or about 23^rd day of December 1983 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria BRUCE IVAR DOWDING did, contrary to sub-section 29A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914, lodge or cause to be lodged with the Australian Taxation Office the income tax return…

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 Dowding

Details

AGLC: R v Dowding [2000] VSC 439
Case: [2000] VSC 439
Decision Date: 25 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Dowding, the court was presented with a case involving the defendant, Dowding, who was charged with conspiracy and other related offences under the Crimes Act. The dispute centred on the application to dismiss the charge of conspiracy and the request for the severance of the substantive offence counts. The matter was heard in a court of relevant jurisdiction, where the accused sought to have the conspiracy charge dismissed and for the substantive offence counts to be severed.

The court was tasked with determining whether the conspiracy charge should be dismissed and if the substantive offence counts should be severed from the conspiracy charge. This involved assessing the merits of the application to dismiss the conspiracy charge, which required consideration of the evidence and the legal framework governing conspiracy charges. Additionally, the court had to decide whether severance of the substantive offence counts was appropriate under the circumstances, which involved examining the relationship between the conspiracy charge and the substantive offences, as well as the potential prejudice to the accused.

The court conducted a thorough analysis of the legal arguments presented by both parties. It considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning conspiracy charges and the severance of offences. The court concluded that the application to dismiss the conspiracy charge was not well-founded, as the evidence supported the existence of a conspiracy. Regarding the severance of the substantive offence counts, the court found that severance was not appropriate in this instance, as the conspiracy and the substantive offences were closely linked and the severance could lead to prejudice against the accused. Consequently, the application to dismiss the conspiracy charge was dismissed, and the request for severance was denied.

The court's final orders were that the conspiracy charge would proceed to trial, and the substantive offence counts would remain joined with the conspiracy charge. The accused, Dowding, would face trial on all charges as they were related and could not be severed. This decision ensures that the integrity of the legal process is maintained, and the accused is afforded a fair trial on all relevant charges.

Orders