Gregg v R [2020] NSWCCA 245

Gregg v R [2020] NSWCCA 245

The appeal was allowed because the verdicts of guilty on each count were unreasonable and/or could not be supported on the evidence, and the trial involved material miscarriages of justice from erroneous jury directions (including on the onus of proof, sham, recklessness, and unanimity), the exclusion and admission of certain documentary evidence, and prejudicial prosecutorial conduct reversing the onus of proof. The evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that the payments and agreement were not false or sham as alleged; essential elements could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, warranting quashing the convictions and entering verdicts of acquittal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdicts of guilty quashed; verdicts of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'jury Directions' 'falsification of Company Books' 'sham Agreement' 'reversal of Onus of Proof' 'admissibility of Documentary Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'corporate Crime' 'evidence Law' 'procedure'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'jury Directions' 'falsification of Company Books' 'sham Agreement' 'reversal of Onus of Proof' 'admissibility of Documentary Evidence']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts were unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence' 'Whether errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, including a business presentation, occurred' 'Whether jury directions were affected by errors of law (as to unanimity, recklessness, definition of falsity, sham, onus of proof, question trail, circumstantial reasoning)' "Whether the prosecutor's closing address resulted in a miscarriage of justice by impermissibly reversing the onus or commenting on the accused's silence" 'Whether there was an error in refusing to give a Mahmood direction on the absence of certain witnesses']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the verdicts of guilty on each count were unreasonable and/or could not be supported on the evidence, and the trial involved material miscarriages of justice from erroneous jury directions (including on the onus of proof, sham, recklessness, and unanimity), the exclusion and admission of certain documentary evidence, and prejudicial prosecutorial conduct reversing the onus of proof. The evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that the payments and agreement were not false or sham as alleged; essential elements could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, warranting quashing the convictions and entering verdicts of acquittal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdicts of guilty quashed; verdicts of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the verdict of guilty on each count of the indictment dated 9 May 2017 and enter a verdict of acquittal on each count.']