R v Gore - [2021] QCA 147

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gore [2021] QCA 147

PARTIES:

R
v
GORE, Craig Kirrin
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 254 of 2020
DC No 1835 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 27 October 2020 (Byrne QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

20 July 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 February 2021

JUDGES:

Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Burns J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was charged with 12 counts of fraud – where the appellant was convicted on six counts after a trial by judge alone – where the relevant issue at trial was whether the appellant was dishonest when he induced investors to make various loans – where the dishonesty was particularised as certain knowledge of the financial position of the investment companies, through which the investments were made – where the trial judge found that a debt owing to the ATO was a significant factor in assessing the appellant’s knowledge – where the appellant was found to have dishonestly gained a benefit or advantage by inducing the complainants to make an investment after he had knowledge of, among other things, the ATO debt – where the trial judge acquitted the appellant of charges relating to investments made before the appellant had knowledge of the ATO debt – whether there were inconsistent verdicts – whether, in relying on certain evidence for the convictions, the trial judge denied the appellant the full benefit of his acquittals – whether the it was open to the trial judge to convict

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was charged with 12 counts of fraud – where the appellant was convicted on six counts after a trial by judge alone – whether there was sufficient evidence to support findings made by the trial judge – whether it was open to the trial judge to convict

Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)(d)

Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29, considered
R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364; [1978] HCA 39, cited
Washer v Western Australia (2007) 234 CLR 492; [2007] HCA 48, considered

COUNSEL:

S C Holt QC, with M J McCarthy, for the appellant
D A Holliday QC, with P J Wilson, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

MORRISON JA: I agree with the reasons of McMurdo JA, and with the proposed order.
McMURDO JA: The appellant was tried by a judge alone in the District Court on 12 charges of fraud contrary to s 408C(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. The appellant was acquitted on six of the charges, and convicted on the others.[1] He…

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 Gore

Details

AGLC: R v Gore [2021] QCA 147
Case: [2021] QCA 147
Decision Date: 20 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, was charged with 12 counts of fraud and was subsequently convicted on six of those counts by a judge alone. The crux of the dispute centred around the appellant’s alleged dishonesty in inducing investors to make various loans. The trial judge identified the significant factor in assessing the appellant’s knowledge as a debt owed to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), which the appellant was found to have known about. The appellant was acquitted of charges relating to investments made prior to the ATO debt knowledge, leading to questions about whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the trial judge’s reliance on certain evidence for the convictions denied the appellant the full benefit of his acquittals.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's findings were supported by sufficient evidence and whether it was open to the trial judge to convict the appellant of the fraud charges. This involved assessing the credibility of the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to the concept of dishonesty in financial dealings. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were any inconsistencies in the verdicts that would render the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's reasoning, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge’s findings. The court determined that it was open to the trial judge to convict the appellant based on the evidence presented, and that the verdicts were not inconsistent. The court also found that the trial judge did not deny the appellant the full benefit of his acquittals by relying on certain evidence for the convictions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The court’s decision was clear: the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions on six counts of fraud were maintained. This outcome affirmed the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and the legal principles applied in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Gore [2021] QCA 147
PARTIES:	R v GORE, Craig Kirrin (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 254 of 2020 DC No 1835 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 27 October 2020 (Byrne QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	20 July 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 February 2021
JUDGES:	Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Burns J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was charged with 12 counts of fraud – where the appellant was convicted on six counts after a trial by judge alone – where the relevant issue at trial was whether the appellant was dishonest when he induced investors to make various loans – where the dishonesty was particularised as certain knowledge of the financial position of the investment companies, through which the investments were made – where the trial judge found that a debt owing to the ATO was a significant factor in assessing the appellant’s knowledge – where the appellant was found to have dishonestly gained a benefit or advantage by inducing the complainants to make an investment after he had knowledge of, among other things, the ATO debt – where the trial judge acquitted the appellant of charges relating to investments made before the appellant had knowledge of the ATO debt – whether there were inconsistent verdicts – whether, in relying on certain evidence for the convictions, the trial judge denied the appellant the full benefit of his acquittals – whether the it was open to the trial judge to convict CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was charged with 12 counts of fraud – where the appellant was convicted on six counts after a trial by judge alone – whether there was sufficient evidence to support findings made by the trial judge – whether it was open to the trial judge to convict Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)(d) Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29, considered R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364; [1978] HCA 39, cited Washer v Western Australia (2007) 234 CLR 492; [2007] HCA 48, considered
COUNSEL:	S C Holt QC, with M J McCarthy, for the appellant D A Holliday QC, with P J Wilson, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent