Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Gaudry

The Queen v Gaudry

Case [2021] VSC 113 12 March 2021

Contempt of Court

Abuse of Process

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S ECI 2020 03613

THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF WAYNE ANDREW LESLIE CREWES, EILEEN FRANES CREWES AND TOMI TREGENT-CREWES)	Applicants
v
ANTON JEROME FREDERICK GAUDRY	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	John Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 February 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 March 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Gaudry
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 113

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Alleged sub judice contempt – Extant civil proceedings – Communications sent by litigant to opposing parties and potential witness – Communication alleged to have inferred recipients would be jailed – Consideration of the text and circumstances of the communications - Whether communications interfered with the due administration of justice in the extant proceedings – Whether communications improperly pressured recipients to discontinue or compromise the litigation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicants	Mr A Herskope with Mr S Freire	Kalus Kenny Intelex
For the respondent	Mr A Woods with Mr M P Allen	Burch & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

The impugned communications..................................................................................................... 1

Relevant background........................................................................................................................ 4

Applicants’ contentions.................................................................................................................... 7

The Greenberg email tender...................................................................................................... 11
The apology.................................................................................................................................. 15

Relevant principles.......................................................................................................................... 16

Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 18

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 25

Annexure A – The Age article........................................................................................................ 27

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiffs, Wayne Crewes (‘Crewes’), Eileen Crewes and their daughter, Tomi Tregent-Crewes, applied for declarations that Anton Jerome Frederick Gaudry (‘Gaudry’) be adjudged guilty of contempt of this court by sending:

(a) an email to Mr Darren Rogers (blind copied to Crewes) on 13 August 2020 at about 9:28pm, with the subject ‘Jail for Financial Deception’; and

(b) an email to Ms Crewes (blind copied to Ms Tregent-Crewes and Sasha Elma Mort) on 14 August 2020 at about 3:41pm, with the subject ‘Jail for Financial Deception’.

The applicants’ contention was that the purpose of these communications was to intimidate the recipients and to improperly interfere with the due administration of justice and the conduct of Supreme Court proceeding numbers S ECI 2020 02306 and S ECI 2020 03224 (‘Commercial Court proceedings’).

The hearing was limited to whether Gaudry should be adjudged guilty of contempt and punished, with the issue of sentence, if needed, being reserved to a later time.

The application was based on affidavit evidence from Crewes, Ms Crewes and each of their daughters, Ms Tregent-Crewes and Ms Mort. Gaudry relied on an affidavit sworn by his solicitor on the basis of information and belief. All affidavits were tendered without objection and no deponent was cross-examined. The applicants also sought to rely on an email dated 6 September 2020, which is discussed later in these reasons.

The impugned communications

The ‘first email’ stated:

From: jennygaudry@bigpond.com
Date: 13/8/20 9:28 pm (GMT+10:00)
To: darrenrogers63@gmail.com
Subject: Jail for Financial Deception
type="1">
The ‘second email’ stated:
From: jennygaudry@bigpond.com
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 3:41 PM
Subject: Jail for Financial Deception

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 The Queen v Gaudry

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Gaudry [2021] VSC 113
Case: [2021] VSC 113
Decision Date: 12 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought an application against Gaudry for alleged contempt of court, arising from communications sent by Gaudry to opposing parties and a potential witness during extant civil proceedings. The Queen contended that these communications constituted sub judice contempt by improperly influencing the recipients to discontinue or compromise the litigation. The court was tasked with determining whether the communications interfered with the due administration of justice in the ongoing civil proceedings and whether they improperly pressured the recipients.

The legal issues before the court were whether the communications sent by Gaudry amounted to contempt of court and, if so, whether they constituted sub judice contempt. The court considered the text of the communications and the circumstances in which they were sent. It examined whether the communications were likely to interfere with the due administration of justice by influencing the recipients to discontinue or compromise the litigation. The court also considered whether the communications amounted to an attempt to improperly pressure the recipients.

The court found that the communications did not amount to contempt of court. It held that the communications, while perhaps ill-advised, did not interfere with the due administration of justice or improperly pressure the recipients. The court observed that the communications were sent in the context of ongoing civil proceedings and did not contain any explicit threats or coercive language that would have a significant impact on the recipients' decision-making. The court concluded that the communications did not constitute sub judice contempt and dismissed the application.

No final orders are reported.

Orders