R v Dowding & Grollo - [2000] VSC 222

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	Not Restricted

No. 1420 of 1999

THE QUEEN

BRUCE IVAR DOWDING, BRUNO GORDANO GROLLO AND RINO JOHN GROLLO

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF RULING:	24 MAY 2000
DATE OF REASONS:	31 MAY 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 222

---

CATCHWORDS: Expert accounting witness – Role of expert – Independence – Impartiality – Reasoning processes – Accounting principles – Tax consequences – Mixed questions law and fact.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Prosecution

L. Robberds QC with
D. Maguire and P. Sest

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

For the Accused

J. Judd QC with
M. Taft for Dowding

C. Heliotis QC with G. Lyon
for Bruno Grollo

T. Forrest QC for Rino Grollo

Arnold Bloch Leibler

HIS HONOUR:

These are the reasons for my ruling that I would not accede to a pre-trial application made on behalf of the accused. The application was to exclude in whole or in part a witness statement of Leon Maddern dated 28 April 2000 (“the April 2000 statement”). A like application had been made in September 1999 relative to a May 1998 statement of Leon Maddern. After hearing submissions then, I ruled that I was not prepared to accede to that application. I briefly indicated my reasons. On 9 December 1999, I provided more detailed reasons.

I indicated in the December 1999 reasons that I perceived that there were deficiencies in the May 1998 statement. I indicated respects in which I believed that those deficiencies should be remedied. Those perceived deficiencies went to matters including inadequate identification of documents, defining of terms, and references to principles and sources. The April 2000 statement has been prepared in response to the December 1999 reasons. The April 2000 statement has pages numbered to 87, paragraphs numbered to 388 and footnotes numbered to 227. It is divided into sections with one section split into divisions focused on six issues highlighted in the December 1999 reasons.

My first reaction on perusing the April 2000 statement was to think that it was much more elaborate than I had expected, especially as I had said in the December 1999 reasons that I expected that the time needed to be spent in remedial work should not be substantial. Other initial reactions included that the statement appeared to address most of my concerns, that the splitting of material into divisions and issues addressed my concern as to focus, that the identification of documents relied on and sources was much more specific, and that there was not as much as I had hoped for by way of reference to specific accounting principles.

Mr Judd has made many criticisms of the April 2000 statement. The criticisms can be categorised as those going to: consequences; partiality; departure from the ideal; absence of principles; and absence of definition or detail. Some of the criticisms fell into more than one category. He also argued that many deficiencies amounted to failures to comply with my ruling.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Dowding & Grollo and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] VSC 222
Decision Date: 31 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Dowding & Grollo, the High Court of Australia was tasked with examining the admissibility of expert accounting evidence in a criminal trial. The defendants, Dowding and Grollo, were charged with various counts of tax evasion and related offences. The court was required to determine whether the evidence of an expert accounting witness was admissible and, if so, the extent to which it could be relied upon by the jury. The primary legal issues revolved around the role of expert witnesses, their independence and impartiality, the application of accounting principles, and the interaction between questions of law and fact in the context of expert testimony.

The court addressed these issues by first considering the established principles regarding the admissibility of expert evidence. It was noted that expert witnesses are permitted to provide opinions on matters outside the knowledge of the average juror, provided their testimony is based on reliable principles and methods. The court emphasised the importance of the expert's independence and impartiality, ensuring that their testimony is not influenced by any party to the proceedings. In this case, the court found that the expert had maintained their independence and provided a detailed explanation of their reasoning processes and the accounting principles applied. The court also acknowledged the need to distinguish between questions of law, which are for the judge, and questions of fact, which may be informed by expert evidence.

The High Court concluded that the expert's evidence was admissible and could assist the jury in understanding the complex accounting and tax issues involved in the case. The court held that while the ultimate determination of tax consequences was a question of law, the expert's evidence could provide valuable insight into the factual aspects of the defendants' financial dealings. The court cautioned, however, that the jury must ultimately decide the legal consequences of those facts. The High Court's decision thus affirmed the role of expert accounting evidence in criminal trials, provided it adheres to the principles of reliability, independence, and impartiality.

The final orders of the court were that the expert's evidence was admissible and could be considered by the jury in their deliberations. The court did not quash the convictions but acknowledged the importance of expert testimony in complex financial cases. The decision reinforces the need for careful consideration of the admissibility and scope of expert evidence in criminal trials, ensuring that such evidence is both reliable and relevant to the issues at hand.

Orders