R v Richardson

Case [2013] QCA 241


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Richardson [2013] QCA 241

PARTIES:

R
v
RICHARDSON, Ronald James
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 46 of 2013
DC No 32 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 July 2013

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philip McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of fraud – where the appellant, through companies controlled by him, obtained approximately $2,500,000 from investors on the basis that the monies would be used to purchase the Fraser Shores Medical Centre and investors would receive a return of 20 per cent per annum on their respective investments – where the appellant gave evidence that he intended to purchase the Fraser Shores Medical Centre but had failed to pursue negotiations due to the collapse of the RMC Group – where the evidence revealed that discussions for the purchase of the Fraser Shores Medical Centre were tentative preliminary discussions rather than negotiations to purchase – where the appellant falsely told investors that he had “finally been able to get” the Fraser Shores Medical Centre – where investors’ monies were rapidly transferred from the account into which they were deposited – where the appellant explained the rapid transfer by reference to attempts to obtain interest and inter company loans – where the appellant contends that the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the applicant/appellant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MUIR JA:  Introduction The appellant was convicted of fraud after a five day trial in the District Court.  The indictment alleged that the appellant had “dishonestly gained sums of money for RMC COOLOOLA PTY LTD or another” on various dates between 11 January 2009 and 26 February 2009, with the aggravating circumstance that the value of the property was more than $30,000.  The appellant appeals on the ground that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the evidence.  An application for leave to appeal against sentence was not pursued and it was ordered that the application be refused.

  1. In 2002, a company controlled by the appellant established the Fraser Shores Medical Centre in Hervey Bay by acquiring appropriate premises and engaging Dr Omowaire, a general medical practitioner trained in Turkey, to provide the requisite medical services.  The appellant, or a company associated with the appellant, then acted as the doctor’s sponsor for visa purposes and continued to…

Continue reading R v Richardson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Richardson [2013] QCA 241
Case
[2013] QCA 241
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Richardson, the appellant, through companies controlled by him, was convicted of fraud for obtaining approximately $2,500,000 from investors under false pretenses. The appellant had led investors to believe that the funds would be used to purchase the Fraser Shores Medical Centre, with a promised return of 20 per cent per annum. However, the appellant gave evidence that he intended to purchase the medical centre but failed to pursue negotiations due to the collapse of the RMC Group. The investors' monies were rapidly transferred from the account into which they were deposited, with the appellant explaining this by reference to attempts to obtain interest and inter-company loans.

The legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, contending that the jury had failed to consider the preliminary nature of the discussions about purchasing the Fraser Shores Medical Centre. The court examined the evidence and concluded that the jury had correctly assessed the appellant's credibility and the reliability of his explanations for the rapid transfer of funds. The court found that the evidence supported the jury's verdict that the appellant had knowingly engaged in fraudulent conduct.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence. The appellant's argument that the jury had failed to consider the preliminary nature of the discussions was rejected as the evidence clearly demonstrated that these were not serious negotiations. The court further refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, finding no grounds for reconsideration. The final orders were that the appeal be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.