R v Dickson (No 13) [2014] NSWSC 1859

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dickson (No 13) [2014] NSWSC 1859 Hearing dates: 26 November 2014 Decision date: 26 November 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: Application declined. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - proposed direction of law - whether expert evidence - use and role of evidence entirely factual. Legislation Cited: -- Cases Cited: -- Texts Cited: -- Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Crown (Commonwealth Prosecutor) Anthony James Dickson (Accused (12/140639)) Representation: Counsel: M. McHugh SC, S. Flood, A.P.C. McGrath (Crown) B. Gross QC, C.G. Catt (Dickson)

Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Tully & Chiper (Dickson) File Number(s): 2012/140639

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Re on proposed directions of law (ref T4296) 1. Senior counsel for the accused has provided a document setting out the proposed directions of law and, to an extent, directions of fact that he seeks I give to the jury. The Crown has done the same. I will attempt seriatum to address the contested directions. 2. The first that arises is a request on behalf of the accused that a direction be given concerning expert evidence relating to certain Karkalla Biotechnology Group valuation reports said to have been authored by Dr Peggy Wong. 3. Following the submission of the first set of tax returns for NeuMedix Health Australasia Pty Ltd ("NHA") an audit letter was sent by the Australian Taxation Office ("ATO") to the accused, Mr Dickson, which, inter alia, sought the provision of any valuation reports concerning the technology the subject of the depreciation claims in the returns. 4. Some time after that there was provided to the ATO three reports under the heading Karkalla Biotechnology Group, signed off by Dr Peggy Wong. 5. There is a sharp factual dispute between the Crown and the accused as to whether these reports were bogus or not. The Crown says there was no such person as Peggy Wong and no such organisation as the Karkalla Biotechnology Group, and the reports were fictitious. Mr Dickson vigorously denies that contention. 6. There is also a factual dispute as to whether in providing the reports Mr Dickson was seeking to bolster the depreciation claims in the tax returns by providing the reports or was simply responding to a request. Dr Peggy Wong is not to be called to give evidence. 7. In my view a direction of the kind sought by Mr Dickson is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, the reports do not have the quality of being expert evidence in that, unlike the expert who they do call, there is no author being called to set out the basis for the opinion. 8. Second, the brief recounting of the case to date concerning these reports makes it clear that the basis upon which they are being utilised by the Crown, and by the accused, is not as expert evidence. 9. Instead, on the Crown case, they are a piece of paper that was provided by the accused to the ATO to further the fraudulent scheme he is alleged to have engaged in. On the accused's case they are, at most, simply a report that was obtained during the course of a transaction which was bona fide. 10. The disputes concerning the use and role of this report are entirely factual and a direction on matters of law concerning expert evidence in relation to these reports is unwarranted. It would only confuse the jury in dealing with the respective cases. I decline to give it.