R v Durovic

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of R v Durovic involved an application for severance of an indictment containing 306 counts. The accused was charged with crimes contrary to the Criminal Code, s234, and the Companies (Tasmania) Code, s229(4). The application sought the severance of all counts alleging crimes contrary to s229(4). The indictment alleged multiple instances of theft from the company Paragon 2000. The Crown argued that if the jury was not convinced the acts constituted the crime of stealing, they amounted to a breach of duty under s229(4). The applicant argued that the existence of alternate counts would allow the Crown to introduce inadmissible evidence regarding the company's affairs.

The court considered whether the alternate counts should be severed. The court acknowledged that evidence relevant to the alternate charge could be admitted, and that much of the background material regarding the company's affairs would be relevant and admissible. The court noted that the Crown could lead evidence in relation to other alternate crimes, such as "dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage" and "receiving stolen property," even if such evidence was not admissible in relation to s234. The court concluded that the potential for prejudice did not justify severance, as the jury would be able to distinguish between the different crimes alleged. The court also noted that the complexity of the case was due to the number of counts rather than the legal distinctions between the crimes.

The court further considered whether the seventy separate counts not characterised as alternatives should be severed. The Crown argued that these counts could be joined by virtue of the Criminal Code, s311(2), and that evidence relating to these counts could be led to show the general operations of the company. The court noted that severance of these counts could cause evidentiary difficulties for the defence. However, the court decided not to order severance of all counts contrary to s229(4) and acceded to the applicant's request to make a further application in respect of the seventy counts if severance was not ordered for all counts. The court ultimately refused the application for severance of all counts contrary to s229(4).