R v Thompson; R v Farrugia (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 329

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Thompson; R v Farrugia (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 329 Hearing dates: 24 and 25 June 2109 Date of orders: 25 June 2019 Decision date: 25 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Smith SC, DCJ Decision: In respect of Counts 2 and 3 there should be a directed verdict. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – verdict by direction Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Criminal Code Cases Cited: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Poniatowska (2011) 244 CLR 408 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 R v Barbouttis (1995) 37 NSWLR 256 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Ian Athol Thompson – Defendant Joseph Carmec Farrugia - Defendant Representation: Counsel: Crown: Mr L Fernandez with Mr C McGorey Ian Athol Thompson: Mr P Boulten SC with Mr A O'Brien Joseph Carmec Farrugia: Mr P Strickland SC with Mr S Wells

Solicitors: Crown: Commonwealth Department Public Prosecution Ian Athol Thompson: Clayton Utz Joseph Carmec Farrugia: McPherson Kelly File Number(s): 2017/305308 – Ian Athol Thompson; 2017/305247 – Joseph Carmec Farrugia Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment 1. Each of the accused is being tried on indictment of three charges. At the conclusion of the Crown case the accused each made an application that there be directed verdicts of not guilty on each count. I concluded that there should be a directed verdict in respect of counts 2 and 3 but not in respect of count 1. These are my reasons for that conclusion.