Rose v The Queen

Paul and Jane Rose appeal against their convictions and sentences for fraud and deception. Paul Rose was sentenced to three years and two months' imprisonment and Jane Rose to nine months' home detention. Paul Rose argues that the Crown presented misleading evidence about his employment agreements, and that the trial judge failed to provide a direction regarding what constituted a conflict of interest. Jane Rose argues that the trial judge's response to a jury question did not draw a clear distinction between the need to prove an act of assistance and an intention to aid her husband. Jane Rose also seeks to admit fresh evidence that may reasonably have led to her acquittal. The Court of Appeal found no merit in Paul Rose's appeal against his convictions and sentence. In relation to his appeal against his convictions, the Court found that the proposed evidence of a 2003 employment agreement was not relevant to the charges on which he was convicted and did not give rise to any risk of a miscarriage of justice. In relation to the failure to provide a direction as to what constituted a conflict of interest, the Court found that the omission did not give rise to any miscarriage of justice. In relation to his sentence appeal, the Court found that the starting point taken by the trial judge was not excessive, and that the trial judge was entitled to decline to impose a sentence of reparation. The Court of Appeal found no merit in Jane Rose's appeal against her convictions. In relation to the trial judge's response to a jury question, the Court found that the trial judge's answer correctly advised that the jury had to assess whether practical involvement in the day-to-day running of the business satisfied the two elements of the question. In relation to the fresh evidence, the Court found that its content did not give rise to any risk of a miscarriage of justice.