R v Pratten (No 8) [2012] NSWSC 1671

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 8) [2012] NSWSC 1671 Hearing dates: 12 March 2012,14 March 2012, 19 March 2012-23 March 2012, 26 March 2012 -29 March 2012, 02 April 2012, 04 April 2012 -05 April 2012, 11 April 2012, 14 April 2012- 30 April 2012, 01 May 2012 -02 May 2012, 04 May 2012, 07 May 2012, 09 May 2012-23 May 2012. Decision date: 23 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: 1. The document, MFI 60, is admissible in the proceedings. Catchwords: CRIMINAL- Interlocutory proceedings - admissibility of evidence - tender of document - inference on the balance of probabilities Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Timothy Charles Pratten (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: K. Chapple SC with B. Hatfield (Crown) M. Leighton-Daly (Defendant) File Number(s): 2010/315475

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1. HIS HONOUR: The issue before the Court is the admission into evidence of the document marked MFI 60, which is an ASIC historical company extract for 71 Cowper Street Holdings Pty Ltd. The extract evidences, and is sought to be tendered because it evidences, that Commercial Pacific Insurance Ltd, a company that has received significant attention throughout the course of these proceedings, became a shareholder in 71 Cowper Street Holdings Pty Ltd, a company that also has received significant attention in the course of these proceedings. 2. The accused, who is seeking to tender the documents, wishes the jury to draw an inference on the balance of probabilities that Commercial Pacific Insurance Ltd became a shareholder in 71 Cowper Street as consideration for the reduction in debt owing to it of approximately $876,000. The transfer, it seems, on any analysis of the documentation, must have been from Mr Pratten, the accused. 3. Earlier in these proceedings, I was asked to rule, and did rule, on the admissibility of a transfer of shares that was tendered by the accused (Transcript 1140). That transfer of shares was tendered essentially on the same basis, that is, to prove the same inference that otherwise would have been proved, or is sought to be proved, by the document now before me. 4. The difference between the circumstances arising at that time and this time is that evidence is now before the Court which shows the reduction in indebtedness from Mr Pratten to Commercial Pacific Ltd at a time subsequent to 30 June 2009 but before 21 May 2012. 5. While the jury would not necessarily draw an inference that the reduction in indebtedness was as a result of the transfer shares, it seems to me it would be an inference that would be available to them, and in those circumstances, it is not my function to deny them information from which they could draw such an inference. 6. It seems to me that the reduction in indebtedness as a result of the transfer of shares, if that inference were drawn, is a matter that reflects on the legitimacy of the loan, if it were a loan, from Commercial Pacific Insurance Ltd to Mr Pratten, and the repayment of it. In those circumstances, I would admit MFI 60 into evidence.