R v Miller - [2007] VSCA 249

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 317 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v
PAUL ANTHONY MILLER

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and CHERNOV JJA and CURTAIN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 October 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 November 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 249	1^st Revision 23 November 2007

---

Criminal law – Inconsistent verdicts – Merciful verdicts – Money laundering – Acquittals entailed monies were not the proceeds of crime – Majority verdicts – Jury instructed to reach unanimous verdicts if possible – Jury question – Meaning of innocent until proven guilty – Redirection adequate – Convictions quashed – Appellant re-sentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy with Mr C T Carr	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr L C Carter	Lethbridges

BUCHANAN JA:

The applicant pleaded not guilty in the County Court to a presentment containing seven counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, nine counts of money laundering, two counts of theft and two counts of falsifying documents.

The charges arose from transactions involving Eurovox Pty Ltd (‘Eurovox’), a company engaged in the business of selling to car manufacturers in Australia audio equipment made overseas. The transactions took place between December 1998 and November 2002. The applicant was the managing director of Eurovox.

A great deal of the audio equipment was acquired by Eurovox from Maruwa Electronic and Chemical Company (‘Maruwa’), which manufactured the equipment in Japan. Seigo Ito was in charge of the electronics division of Maruwa. Ito was a principal Crown witness at the trial.

According to the Crown, the applicant and Ito procured payments from Eurovox to Maruwa or other companies controlled by Ito. The payments did not represent genuine transactions, and were often obtained by the production of false invoices. Ito arranged for sums representing the whole or part of the monies paid by Eurovox to be sent to a bank account in Australia in the name of the applicant.

The jury found the applicant guilty on two counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, five counts of money laundering, one count of making a false document and one count of using a false document.

I turn to the Crown case as to those counts on which the applicant was found guilty or which were relevant to those counts.

Pursuant to count 3, the Crown alleged that the applicant arranged for Eurovox to pay an invoice created by Ito at the request of the applicant, apparently for the cost of tooling to manufacture a tuner and control unit. The invoice was false in that the cost of the tooling was paid by amortisation, that is, by adding a percentage of the cost to the price of products sold by Maruwa to Eurovox. The jury found the applicant not guilty. The prosecution case on count 4 was that the applicant received funds that were the proceeds of the crime said to be count 3, when he knew or ought…

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 Miller

Details

AGLC: R v Miller [2007] VSCA 249
Case: [2007] VSCA 249
Decision Date: 15 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a majority verdict of money laundering offences. The jury was instructed to reach unanimous verdicts if possible but returned majority verdicts instead. The appellant appealed against the convictions on several grounds, including the trial judge’s failure to adequately address the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the giving of a jury question. The convictions were quashed, and the appellant was re-sentenced. The appeal centred on the legal issues surrounding the validity of majority verdicts in criminal trials and the adequacy of the trial judge’s directions to the jury.

The court examined whether the trial judge’s directions on the principle of innocent until proven guilty were adequate. It was held that the judge’s redirection to the jury was sufficient to address this principle. The court also considered whether the jury question was appropriate. It was determined that the question did not prejudice the appellant’s right to a fair trial. However, the court found that the majority verdicts were inconsistent with the requirement for unanimous verdicts in criminal trials, leading to the quashing of the convictions. The appellant was subsequently re-sentenced.

The court's reasoning focused on the fundamental principles of criminal justice, particularly the requirement for unanimous jury verdicts and the importance of properly directing the jury on key legal principles. While the judge’s redirection to the jury on the principle of innocent until proven guilty was deemed adequate, the court held that the majority verdicts were legally flawed. This flaw necessitated the quashing of the convictions, and the appellant was re-sentenced in light of the new findings.

The final orders of the court included quashing the original convictions and re-sentencing the appellant. The court did not find merit in the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, thus affirming the adequacy of the jury’s redirection and the propriety of the jury question. The case underscores the importance of unanimous jury verdicts and the necessity for clear and proper jury directions in criminal trials.

Orders