R v Bigatton [2022] NSWDC 144

R v Bigatton [2022] NSWDC 144

The accused failed to establish that the sought communications between ASIC and foreign agencies under paragraph 4(d) have a legitimate forensic purpose as they are at best hearsay and would not assist to resolve the facts in issue, in particular identification. The orders sought by ASIC are granted and paragraph 4(d) is to be struck out.

Parties
Prosecutor: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; Accused: John Louis Anthony Bigatton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Subpoena Prior to Trial
Outcome
Orders made in terms of para [1] and para [2] of the Notice of Motion; disputed part of subpoena struck out
Legal Topics
Subpoenas, Disclosure, Managed Investment Schemes, False or Misleading Statements, Director Identification
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Subpoenas Disclosure Managed Investment Schemes False or Misleading Statements Director Identification

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Prosecutor

John Louis Anthony Bigatton

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Subpoena Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 4(d) of the subpoena to ASIC seeks documents for a legitimate forensic purpose
  2. 2 The appropriate test for setting aside subpoenaed material in criminal cases

Ratio Decidendi

The accused failed to establish that the sought communications between ASIC and foreign agencies under paragraph 4(d) have a legitimate forensic purpose as they are at best hearsay and would not assist to resolve the facts in issue, in particular identification. The orders sought by ASIC are granted and paragraph 4(d) is to be struck out.

Court Disposition

Orders made in terms of para [1] and para [2] of the Notice of Motion; disputed part of subpoena struck out

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4(a) to 4(c) of the subpoena struck out by consent
  • Paragraph 4(d) of the subpoena to ASIC is struck out; orders made in terms of para [1] and para [2] of the Notice of Motion