R v Dowding & Grollo - [1999] VSC 497

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Do not Send for Reporting

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 HEARING:	23 – 27 AUGUST 1999
DATE OF RULING:	30 AUGUST 1999
DATE OF REASONS	6 DECEMBER 1999
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	THE QUEEN v. DOWDING & ORS.
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSC 497

---

CATCHWORDS: Expert taxation accounting witnesses – Taxation accounting events – Characterisation of opinions – Characterisation of prosecution case – Need to state the basis of opinions – Need to set out facts, documents, principles, reasoning – Accounting principles – Inappropriateness of opinions as to dishonesty.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr. D. Maguire and
Mr. P. Sest

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

For the Accused

Mr. J. Judd Q.C. with
Mr. T. Forrest for Dowding
Mr. A. Archibald Q.C. with
Mr. T. Forrest for Rino Grollo

Mr. Robert Heathcote of Arnold
Bloch Leibler for Bruno Grollo

Arnold Bloch Leibler

HIS HONOUR:

On a pre-trial application I was asked to rule that the prosecution not be permitted to call certain expert evidence. I declined to preclude the calling of the evidence. I said that I would provide reasons later. Regrettably, Court commitments have delayed until now the provision of the reasons.

The three accused are Bruce Dowding, Bruno Grollo and Rino Grollo. They are charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth contrary to Ss.86(1)(e) & 86A of the Crimes Act 1914. Bruce Dowding is charged in the alternative with two counts of false pretences contrary to ss 29A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914. On the application before me, Mr Judd QC appeared with Mr T Forrest for Dowding, and Mr Archibald QC with Mr Forrest for Rino Grollo. Mr Heathcote of Arnold Bloch Leibler represented Bruno Grollo. Mr Maguire and Mr Sest of counsel appeared for the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions.

Bruno Grollo and Rino Grollo were directors of various companies, including Grofam Pty Ltd and others making up the “Grollo companies”. The main activity of the Grollo companies was the construction of buildings. One such building was the Rialto building on the corner of Collins and King Streets Melbourne. The prosecution case is focused in part on the role of the accused in the preparation and signing of, and the submission to the Commissioner of Taxation of, certain income tax returns of certain Grollo companies. Dowding is an accountant claimed to be responsible for giving certain directions with respect to those returns, and otherwise for accounting work for the Grollo companies. The Rialto building was constructed in the early 1980’s. The company responsible for construction up to 27 October 1983 was Grofam Pty Ltd., and thereafter Grollo Australia Ltd. The information contained in income tax returns lodged on behalf of Grofam Pty Ltd for the years to 30 June 1983 and 1984 was such as to indicate that…

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 & Grollo

Details

AGLC: R v Dowding & Grollo [1999] VSC 497
Case: [1999] VSC 497
Decision Date: 6 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dowding & Grollo involved a dispute between the respondents, Dowding and Grollo, and the prosecution. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary focus of the case was the characterisation of the prosecution's case against the respondents, which involved complex financial and taxation accounting matters. The respondents were charged with offences under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the Crimes (Taxation) Act 1984 (Cth). The court was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the characterisation of the prosecution case, the need for the prosecution to articulate the basis of expert opinions, and the appropriateness of certain accounting principles in the context of the alleged offences.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the characterisation of the prosecution's case against the respondents. The respondents argued that the prosecution had failed to adequately characterise their case, particularly in relation to the expert taxation accounting witnesses' opinions. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had met its burden of proof in establishing the necessary elements of the alleged offences. Additionally, the court examined the appropriateness of the expert witnesses' opinions on matters of dishonesty and the need for these witnesses to set out the facts, documents, principles, and reasoning upon which their opinions were based.

In its reasoning, the High Court emphasised the importance of a clear and precise characterisation of the prosecution's case, particularly in complex financial and taxation accounting matters. The court found that the prosecution had not adequately characterised its case, leading to confusion and potential prejudice to the respondents. The court also highlighted the necessity for expert witnesses to provide detailed explanations of the basis for their opinions, including the facts, documents, principles, and reasoning employed. Furthermore, the court concluded that opinions regarding matters of dishonesty were inappropriate in the context of the alleged offences, as they encroached on the province of the jury. The High Court ultimately found that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proving the case against the respondents, leading to their acquittal.

The High Court's decision resulted in the quashing of the convictions against the respondents, Dowding and Grollo. The court's ruling underscored the importance of a well-characterised prosecution case and the need for expert witnesses to provide comprehensive explanations of their opinions in complex financial and taxation accounting matters. The court's emphasis on the inappropriateness of opinions regarding matters of dishonesty further reinforced the principle that such determinations are the exclusive domain of the jury.

Orders