DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7) [2025] QDCPR 3
PARTIES:
THE KING
v
JENNIFER JOAN HUTSON
(Defendant)
FILE NO:
156 of 2021
DIVISION:
Criminal
PROCEEDING:
Pre-trial applications pursuant to s. 590AA of the Criminal Code.
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:
17 January 2025.
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
16 and 18 December 2024.
JUDGE:
Byrne KC DCJ
ORDERS:
1. The defendant’s objection is upheld in part.
2. The admissibility of the documents said to be admissible as books of account is determined consistently with my findings in paragraphs 37 to 49 inclusive of these reasons.
3. The admissibility of the documents said to be admissible as business records is determined consistently with my findings in paragraphs 59 to 63 inclusive of these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – where the defendant faces trial on charges pursuant to sections 184(1) and 184(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and sections 140 and 408C(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the prosecution relies upon the involvement of two law firms in certain transactions and other events – where both firms produced documents in response to notices issued by ASIC pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – where the prosecution intends to rely on and tender certain records obtained from both firms as books of account or business records – where the defendant objects to the admissibility of the documents – whether the documents are admissible.
LEGISLATION:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s. 33.
Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1949 (Qld).
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s. 1305.Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss. 3, 83, 84, 86, 93, 95, 116, 126.
CASES:
CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Limited (1997) 187 CLR 384.
Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] 1 AC 1001.
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355.
R v Campbell [2019] QCA 127.
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 6) [2025] QDCPR 2.
Ross v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 432.
Sio v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 47.COUNSEL: Mr. J. Greggery KC and Ms. A. Campbell for the prosecution.
Mr. N. Clelland KC with Mr J. Jones and Mr P. Coleridge for the defendant.
SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution.
Gilshenan and Luton for the defendant.
Table of Contents
Background and issues
The documents in dispute
Consideration of the Books of Account basis of admissibility
The parties’ submissions
Consideration
Findings
The McCullough Robertson documents
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
The Mills Oakley Documents
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 8
Table 10
Consideration of the Business Records basis of admissibility
The parties’ submissions
Consideration
Findings
The McCullough Robertson documents
Table 1
Table 5
The Mills Oakley Documents
Table 7
Background and issues
The charges faced…
Continue reading R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7) [2025] QDCPR 3
- Case
- [2025] QDCPR 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the documents were admissible as books of account under the Corporations Act. The defendant argued that the documents were not admissible because there was no evidence that the copies had been examined against the originals, as required by s. 86 of the Act. The defendant contended that printouts of computerised records constituted copies under the broad definition of 'document' in the Act, thus necessitating an actual examination and verification of accuracy. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the requirements of s. 86 were rendered redundant by the combined operations of ss. 116 and 126 of the Act, and that any document used in the ordinary course of the firms' activities that records financial transactions or other particulars is a book of account. The court had to decide whether the documents met the statutory criteria for admissibility as books of account.
The court found that the documents produced by the law firms were those of a partnership, not a corporate entity associated with the partnership. Therefore, s. 1305 of the Corporations Act did not apply. The court then considered the admissibility of the documents under the book of account provisions. The court concluded that the defendant’s objection was upheld in part. The admissibility of the documents as books of account was determined based on the court's findings in paragraphs 37 to 49 of the reasons. Similarly, the admissibility of the documents as business records was determined based on the court's findings in paragraphs 59 to 63 of the reasons.
ORDERS:
1. The defendant's objection was upheld in part.
2. The admissibility of the documents said to be admissible as books of account was determined consistently with the court's findings in paragraphs 37 to 49 of these reasons.
3. The admissibility of the documents said to be admissible as business records was determined consistently with the court's findings in paragraphs 59 to 63 of these reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The defendant’s objection is upheld in part.
2. The admissibility of the documents said to be admissible as books of account is determined consistently with my findings in paragraphs 37 to 49 inclusive of these reasons.
3. The admissibility of the documents said to be admissible as business records is determined consistently with my findings in paragraphs 59 to 63 inclusive of these reasons.
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
The documents produced by each firm were the documents of a partnership, and not a corporate entity associated with the partnership. Accordingly, s. 1305 of the Corporations Act does not apply.Consideration of the Books of Account basis of admissibilityThe parties’ submissions Put bluntly, the defendant submits that none of the documents are admissible as books of account as there is no evidence to satisfy the mandatory requirement in s. 86 of the Act that the copy produced “has been examined with the original entry and is correct”. It is argued that printouts of computerised records are copies of the document given the broad definition of the term “document” in the Act.[5][5]Section 3 and Schedule 3 of the Act. The defeandant emphasises that the plain meaning of the words, as supported by historical context, means that an actual examination of each document and copy must be undertaken. It is not sufficient to show that the circumstances of the creation of the copy, whether from a hard copy or as a printout of a computerised record, is likely to be accurate; an actual examination and verification of accuracy is required. The defendant accepts that there are no authorities that assist with the meaning of the words, and so, it is submitted, the plain and ordinary meaning of the words must be applied. A second argument that admissibility via the book of account provisions is limited to books of account, as defined, which limits the availability to transactional documents fell away to some degree once the prosecution refined the list of documents it was seeking to have admitted in the course of argument. It however was not abandoned, and the defendant submits that consideration must be given as to whether any copy document is a copy of a book of account, as defined. The prosecution contends that s. 86 needs to be read subject to the combined operations of ss. 116 and 126 of the Act. The result is that the requirements of s. 86, on their face, are rendered redundant. It is submitted that, consistent with case authority, s. 116 is to be read broadly as a facilitative provision. The prosecution accepts that only books of account, as defined, may be admitted through those provisions, but submits that they are not limited to only financial records. Any document used in the ordinary course of the respective law firms’ activities that records its financial transactions or that records anything dealt with by the law firm and any particulars of those things is a book of account. As such, online banking records are books of account of the respective law firms. The parties are agreed that, if the requirement in s. 86 of the Act has been satisfied by the prosecution, it will be necessary to consider each document to assess if it otherwise satisfies the requirements of the book of account provisions to allow admissibility. As alluded to, the prosecution’s position changed somewhat during the course of argument. In reply the defendant pursued two principal submissions which had not earlier been expressly advanced.