R v Thompson; R v Farrugia [2019] NSWDC 219

R v Thompson; R v Farrugia [2019] NSWDC 219

The Court had power to require the Crown to elect or provide particulars to ensure a fair trial. Count 1, as explained in the supplementary opening, was latently ambiguous or duplicitous because an agreement limited to improving the October 2008 EBIT result was an isolated, time-specific object and was qualitatively different from an ongoing as-needs agreement to falsify books. Fairness required the Crown to answer the question identifying which conspiracy it relied on. The further questions concerning Count 1 and the questions concerning Count 2 were not required because the Crown need not specify the exact commencement of a conspiracy and the indictment identified the alleged parties...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conspiracy Trial on Indictment / Procedural Ruling After Crown Opening and Supplementary Opening Concerning Alleged Latent Duplicity and Particulars
Outcome
The Crown was directed to answer a question in respect of Count 1 only.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy' 'latent Duplicity in Indictment' 'particularisation of Charges' 'power of Trial Judge to Require Prosecutor to Elect or Provide Particulars' 'falsification of Company Books' 'false Information to Auditor']
['criminal Law' 'corporations Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['conspiracy' 'latent Duplicity in Indictment' 'particularisation of Charges' 'power of Trial Judge to Require Prosecutor to Elect or Provide Particulars' 'falsification of Company Books' 'false Information to Auditor']

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 Conspiracy Trial on Indictment / Procedural Ruling After Crown Opening and Supplementary Opening Concerning Alleged Latent Duplicity and Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was latent duplicity in Count 1 in light of the Crown's proposed supplementary opening." 'Whether the charges were otherwise adequately particularised.' 'Whether the Court had power to direct the Crown to answer questions or elect where duplicity or ambiguity was found.' 'Whether similar questions should be answered in respect of Counts 2 and 3.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had power to require the Crown to elect or provide particulars to ensure a fair trial. Count 1, as explained in the supplementary opening, was latently ambiguous or duplicitous because an agreement limited to improving the October 2008 EBIT result was an isolated, time-specific object and was qualitatively different from an ongoing as-needs agreement to falsify books. Fairness required the Crown to answer the question identifying which conspiracy it relied on. The further questions concerning Count 1 and the questions concerning Count 2 were not required because the Crown need not specify the exact commencement of a conspiracy and the indictment identified the alleged parties...

Court Disposition

The Crown was directed to answer a question in respect of Count 1 only.

Orders

  • ['The Crown is directed to answer whether the agreement allegedly made on 7 November 2008 was an agreement to deliberately understate expenses for the month of October 2008 in the general ledger of Hastie Services, or an agreement to falsify entries in the general ledger of Hastie Services to improve reported EBIT...