R v Pratten (No 20) [2015] NSWSC 1102

R v Pratten (No 20) [2015] NSWSC 1102

The application to discharge the jury was refused because the Crown had not, on the material before the Court, confined its case to income received exclusively from the Vanuatu Insurance Company; the evidence concerning the earlier payments and loans was relevant to whether payments were made at the accused's direction and for his benefit; and any possible unfairness could be addressed by confining the Crown to its case that the monies were directly or indirectly from the Vanuatu Insurance Company and by permitting recalled cross-examination of relevant witnesses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Application by the Accused to Discharge the Jury During Trial
Outcome
Application to discharge jury refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Discharge Jury' 'alleged Alteration of Crown Case' 'undeclared Income in Tax Returns' 'dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'evidence of Loans and Payments to Third Parties']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'taxation'] ['application to Discharge Jury' 'alleged Alteration of Crown Case' 'undeclared Income in Tax Returns' 'dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'evidence of Loans and Payments to Third Parties']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Application by the Accused to Discharge the Jury During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged on the basis that the Crown had fundamentally altered its case.' 'Whether the Crown case was confined to the proposition that the accused received income exclusively from the Vanuatu Insurance Company.' "Whether evidence concerning loans and payments connected with GNPPD and the purchase of Skallett was admissible or relevant to undermine the accused's contention that the transactions were inconsistent with the Crown case." 'Whether any unfairness to the accused could be remedied without discharging the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the jury was refused because the Crown had not, on the material before the Court, confined its case to income received exclusively from the Vanuatu Insurance Company; the evidence concerning the earlier payments and loans was relevant to whether payments were made at the accused's direction and for his benefit; and any possible unfairness could be addressed by confining the Crown to its case that the monies were directly or indirectly from the Vanuatu Insurance Company and by permitting recalled cross-examination of relevant witnesses.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge jury refused.

Orders

  • ['Application to discharge jury is refused.' 'The Crown is confined to putting its case on the basis that the monies received by the accused were monies directly or indirectly from the Vanuatu Insurance Company.' 'Ms Celona and Mr Greer are to be recalled for further cross-examination on the request of the accused...