R v Gregory - [2010] VSC 121

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1405 of 2009

THE QUEEN

PAUL JOHN GREGORY

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 22 February and 26 March 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 April 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Gregory
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 121

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy to dishonestly cause a risk of loss to the Commonwealth – Solicitor dishonestly assisted another to evade tax by remitting income overseas – Sentence of two years imprisonment, to be released on recognisance after serving 12 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	N. Robinson SC with N. Adams	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	I. Temby QC with P. Murphy	Sparke Helmore

HIS HONOUR:

Paul John Gregory, on 22 February 2010 a jury found you guilty of conspiring with Glenn Dawson Wheatley, Philip Egglishaw, Philip de Figueriedo and Strachans SA to dishonestly cause a risk of loss to the Commonwealth, contrary to sub-s 135.4(5) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).

The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.

On 26 March 2010, I heard a plea in mitigation on your behalf.

The circumstances of your offending can be summarised as follows.[1]
[1]I am bound to sentence the accused on a factual basis which is consistent with the jury’s verdict. Otherwise, in relation to matters adverse to the accused, I must be satisfied of those matters beyond reasonable doubt, but I may take into account matters in his favour which are established on the balance of probabilities: R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 395 at 369; R v Olbrich (1999) 1999 CLR 270; R v Cheung (2001) 209 CLR 1; and R v Ramage [2004] VSC 508 at [25].

By the mid 1990s you had been a successful and prominent solicitor for many years. In 1994 one your clients was the Australian subsidiary of an international sports and entertainment management organization called International Management Group or IMG. That subsidiary’s name was International Management Group of America Pty Ltd. In 1994 you were an alternate director of that subsidiary. In that capacity you met the well known Australian promoter and entertainment manager, Glenn Wheatley. Mr Wheatley had financial troubles which had led him to take up employment with IMG. Another director of IMG’s Australian subsidiary at that time was an accountant named William Baillie. You and Mr Baillie were the directors of a company associated with IMG named Complaw Pty Ltd.

At your trial Mr Baillie gave evidence about Complaw. He said that his recollection was that Complaw was set up as a vehicle for participation by a number of investors, including executives and associates of IMG, in a tour by the singer, Jose Carreras. You and Mr Baillie (directly or indirectly) were two of those investors. Mr Baillie’s evidence was that profits from that tour were remitted by Complaw overseas to be held by an…

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 Gregory

Details

AGLC: R v Gregory [2010] VSC 121
Case: [2010] VSC 121
Decision Date: 15 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gregory, the respondent was convicted for his involvement in a conspiracy to dishonestly cause a risk of loss to the Commonwealth. This case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The respondent, a solicitor, had assisted another individual in evading tax by remitting income overseas, contravening Australian tax laws. The dispute primarily revolved around the appropriate sentencing for the respondent's actions, which had significant implications for the integrity of the tax system and the legal profession.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the respondent's criminal conduct, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the respondent's role within it. The key legal issue was the extent to which the respondent's professional status and previous good character should mitigate the severity of the sentence. The court had to balance the need for deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation, while also considering the precedent set for other legal professionals.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the respondent's actions, noting the breach of public trust and the potential harm caused to the Commonwealth. However, it also recognised the respondent's previous good character and the absence of personal gain from the offence. After weighing these factors, the court decided on a sentence of two years imprisonment, to be released on recognisance after serving 12 months. This decision reflected a moderate approach, aiming to both punish the respondent and facilitate their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court ordered that the respondent serve a two-year sentence for his involvement in the conspiracy to cause a risk of loss to the Commonwealth. However, due to the respondent's previous good character and the absence of personal gain, the court determined that he should be released on recognisance after serving 12 months. This decision aimed to provide an appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders