R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7)
[2025] QDCPR 3
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7)[2025] QDCPR 3
- Add to List
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7)[2025] QDCPR 3
R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7)[2025] QDCPR 3
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | R v Hutson (Ruling No. 7) [2025] QDCPR 3 |
PARTIES: | THE KING v JENNIFER JOAN HUTSON (Defendant) |
FILE NO: | 156 of 2021 |
DIVISION: | Criminal |
PROCEEDING: | Pre-trial applications pursuant to s. 590AA of the Criminal Code. |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Brisbane District Court |
DELIVERED ON: | 17 January 2025. |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 16 and 18 December 2024. |
JUDGE: | Byrne KC DCJ |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – where the defendant faces trial on charges pursuant to sections 184(1) and 184(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and sections 140 and 408C(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the prosecution relies upon the involvement of two law firms in certain transactions and other events – where both firms produced documents in response to notices issued by ASIC pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – where the prosecution intends to rely on and tender certain records obtained from both firms as books of account or business records – where the defendant objects to the admissibility of the documents – whether the documents are admissible. |
LEGISLATION: | Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s. 33. Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1949 (Qld). Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s. 1305. Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss. 3, 83, 84, 86, 93, 95, 116, 126. |
CASES: | CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Limited (1997) 187 CLR 384. Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] 1 AC 1001. Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355. R v Campbell [2019] QCA 127. R v Hutson (Ruling No. 6) [2025] QDCPR 2. Ross v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 432. Sio v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 47. The Queen v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507. |
COUNSEL: | Mr. J. Greggery KC and Ms. A. Campbell for the prosecution. Mr. N. Clelland KC with Mr J. Jones and Mr P. Coleridge for the defendant. |
SOLICITORS: | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution. Gilshenan and Luton for the defendant. |
Table of Contents
Background and issues3
The documents in dispute3
Consideration of the Books of Account basis of admissibility5
The parties’ submissions5
Consideration6
Findings9
The McCullough Robertson documents10
Table 210
Table 313
Table 416
The Mills Oakley Documents18
Table 118
Table 222
Table 323
Table 426
Table 526
Table 626
Table 827
Table 1027
Consideration of the Business Records basis of admissibility31
The parties’ submissions31
Consideration32
Findings33
The McCullough Robertson documents33
Table 133
Table 534
The Mills Oakley Documents35
Table 735
Background and issues
- [1]The charges faced by the defendant, and a broad summary of the prosecution case, is sufficiently outlined for present purposes in my earlier ruling in this proceeding; R v Hutson (Ruling No. 6).[1] I incorporate what I said there, without repeating it.
- [2]It is apparent that the prosecution case rests, to some degree, upon the involvement of the two law firms McCullough Robertson and Mills Oakley in certain transactions and other events. The prosecution intends to rely upon certain records investigators obtained from those firms. It intends to admit some of those records either as books of account[2] or business records[3] pursuant to the various provisions of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) (“the Act”), and in some instances it relies on the relevant provisions in the alternative. The defendant takes issue with the admissibility of the identified documents on those bases.
The documents in dispute
- [3]The prosecution intend to tender the various subject documents through Mr Timothy Case, for the McCullough Robertson documents, and Mr Stuart Lewin, for the Mills Oakley documents. This objection is concerned with 61 documents from McCullough Robertson and 91 documents from Mills Oakley.
- [4]Each are partners of their respective firms and each assumed responsibility for co-ordinating their respective firm’s response to notices issued by ASIC under s. 33 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (“s. 33 notice”) at different times between 2015 and 2017. The subject documents were each provided, as copies or printouts, by the firms under the requirements of those notices.
- [5]For the purposes of this application, the prosecution has tendered statements from each of them[4] which are marked so as to identify the documents in dispute. The documents have been clustered into “tables”, the significance of which is of no moment for the purposes of the present application. However, it is convenient for purposes of consistency and cross-referencing to keep them arranged that way and, for the same reasons, to also refer to the respective document identifier numbers. Relevant aspects of these tables, including only the disputed documents, are reproduced later in these reasons, including a short summary of my reasoning as to admissibility for each document.
- [6]With respect to the McCullough Robertson documents, the prosecution contends:
- a)That the documents in Tables 1 and 5 are admissible as business records, and does not rely on the book of account provisions for admissibility;
- b)That the documents in Table 4 are admissible as books of account, and does not rely on the business records provisions; and
- c)That the remaining documents, which are found in Tables 2 and 3, are admissible either as books of account or as business records.
- [7]With respect to the Mills Oakley documents, the prosecution contends:
- a)That the documents in Tables 1 – 5 inclusive, 8 and 10 are admissible as books of account, and does not rely on the business records provisions for admissibility;
- b)That the documents in Table 7 are admissible as business records, and does not rely on the book of account provisions; and
- c)That the only remaining documents for consideration, namely in Table 6, are admissible as either books of account or as business records.
- [8]Both Mr Case and Mr Lewin testified in the present hearing, and copies of each of their statements were within the tender bundles marked as exhibits. I have treated them as evidence for the purposes of this application.
- [9]Under cross-examination, each gave evidence to similar effect, and the essence of their individual accounts can be stated as a series of compendious observations. Each co-ordinated their firm’s response to the s. 33 notices, although in the case of Mills Oakley someone else was responsible for that when the first notice was issued. Neither had any direct involvement in the matters the subject of the documents and each has only a general understanding of the trust account operations, and the better persons to ask about that are the respective financial officers.
- [10]In effect, each had a large number of employees of the respective firms looking for material in answer to the notices, which in turn was produced to them. Additionally, each looked for some material themselves. They are unable to now recall what was located by others and what they located themselves. Copies were provided because the instructions that accompanied the respective s. 33 notices provided for the provision of copies. Neither can now recall if, of the material given to them by others, they compared the copy provided with the original. Neither can now be satisfied that any one document was compared with the original. References in their statements to having checked the copies produced is a reference to checking that the copies they had were responsive to the s. 33 notices.
- [11]The documents produced by each firm were the documents of a partnership, and not a corporate entity associated with the partnership. Accordingly, s. 1305 of the Corporations Act does not apply.
Consideration of the Books of Account basis of admissibility
The parties’ submissions
- [12]Put bluntly, the defendant submits that none of the documents are admissible as books of account as there is no evidence to satisfy the mandatory requirement in s. 86 of the Act that the copy produced “has been examined with the original entry and is correct”. It is argued that printouts of computerised records are copies of the document given the broad definition of the term “document” in the Act.[5]
- [13]The defeandant emphasises that the plain meaning of the words, as supported by historical context, means that an actual examination of each document and copy must be undertaken. It is not sufficient to show that the circumstances of the creation of the copy, whether from a hard copy or as a printout of a computerised record, is likely to be accurate; an actual examination and verification of accuracy is required. The defendant accepts that there are no authorities that assist with the meaning of the words, and so, it is submitted, the plain and ordinary meaning of the words must be applied.
- [14]A second argument that admissibility via the book of account provisions is limited to books of account, as defined, which limits the availability to transactional documents fell away to some degree once the prosecution refined the list of documents it was seeking to have admitted in the course of argument. It however was not abandoned, and the defendant submits that consideration must be given as to whether any copy document is a copy of a book of account, as defined.
- [15]The prosecution contends that s. 86 needs to be read subject to the combined operations of ss. 116 and 126 of the Act. The result is that the requirements of s. 86, on their face, are rendered redundant. It is submitted that, consistent with case authority, s. 116 is to be read broadly as a facilitative provision.
- [16]The prosecution accepts that only books of account, as defined, may be admitted through those provisions, but submits that they are not limited to only financial records. Any document used in the ordinary course of the respective law firms’ activities that records its financial transactions or that records anything dealt with by the law firm and any particulars of those things is a book of account. As such, online banking records are books of account of the respective law firms.
- [17]The parties are agreed that, if the requirement in s. 86 of the Act has been satisfied by the prosecution, it will be necessary to consider each document to assess if it otherwise satisfies the requirements of the book of account provisions to allow admissibility.
- [18]As alluded to, the prosecution’s position changed somewhat during the course of argument. In reply the defendant pursued two principal submissions which had not earlier been expressly advanced.
- [19]The first was that s. 116 of the Act did not apply. There were said to be three reasons for that.
- [20]First, it is a general provision and so must yield to the operation of the lex specialis, which is s. 86. Second, the opening words of s. 116 reveal the legislative intention that it prevail only over other provisions in that part of the Act. Section 86 is not in that part, and so it applies. Thirdly, the prosecution accepts that its construction would render s. 86 otiose, and that is not a proper outcome of statutory construction.
- [21]The defendant’s submissions in reply did not expressly address the effect of s. 126 of the Act.
- [22]It was also submitted that the authorities relied on by the prosecution to support the notion that s. 116 should be construed broadly were not concerned with the book of account provisions, nor were they concerned with printouts of computerised records and so are of no real assistance.
Consideration
- [23]The prosecution does not contend that the express requirements of s. 86 of the Act have been complied with, or that the words of the provision should be read in a particular manner. It simply contends that, as a consequence of the proper statutory construction, it does not apply. It is helpful to recall the observations of the majority of the High Court in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority:[6]
- “[69]The primary object of statutory construction is to construe the relevant provision so that it is consistent with the language and purpose of all the provisions of the statute. The meaning of the provision must be determined “by reference to the language of the instrument viewed as a whole”. In Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos, Dixon CJ pointed out that “the context, the general purpose and policy of a provision and its consistency and fairness are surer guides to its meaning than the logic with which it is constructed”. Thus, the process of construction must always begin by examining the context of the provision that is being construed.
- [70]A legislative instrument must be construed on the prima facie basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals. Where conflict appears to arise from the language of particular provisions, the conflict must be alleviated, so far as possible, by adjusting the meaning of the competing provisions to achieve that result which will best give effect to the purpose and language of those provisions while maintaining the unity of all the statutory provisions. Reconciling conflicting provisions will often require the court “to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other”. Only by determining the hierarchy of the provisions will it be possible in many cases to give each provision the meaning which best gives effect to its purpose and language while maintaining the unity of the statutory scheme.
- [71]Furthermore, a court construing a statutory provision must strive to give meaning to every word of the provision. In Commonwealth v Baume Griffith CJ cited R v Berchet to support the proposition that it was “a known rule in the interpretation of statutes that such a sense is to be made upon the whole as that no clause, sentence, or word shall prove superfluous, void, or insignificant, if by any other construction they may all be made useful and pertinent”.” (citations omitted)
- [24]
- [25]It is generally accepted that the book of account provisions were a legislative response to the strictures of the former bankers’ books provisions, as recognised by the Privy Council in Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions.[9] This recognition is supported by the long title to the Act, the notes to the relevant section headings as they appear in the first iteration of the Act and the Parliamentary First reading speech.[10] Specifically, the notes to the section headings confirm that they replaced the then existing Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1949 (Qld). That legislation was based in turn on the previous English legislation to the same effect. Sections 116 and 126 were based on different legislation, as reflected in the notes to those sections’ headings.
- [26]It is unsurprising that legislation in 1949, and prior to that, would require verification of all copies. At that time, almost all copies were handwritten, and there was comparatively little availability of mechanical reproduction. The potential for error is obvious. But the availability of mechanical reproduction had grown markedly by the 1970’s, and hence the potential for error had reduced.
- [27]In my view it is significant that s. 86 refers only to a “copy” whereas s. 116 refers to copies made by “means of a photographic or other machine which produces a facsimile copy of the document” (“machine produced copies”). In other words, the former refers to copies generally and the latter to copies produced in a specific manner. It is a reflection of the changing technology of the times, and of the consequent reduction in the need for verification of a copy. When so understood, the lex specialis is s. 116; that is the provision dealing with a specific type of copy.
- [28]Sections 86, 116 and 126 were all first enacted in the same legislation, and have effectively been in the same form since then, about 47 years ago. The legislature is presumed to have known that the provisions were arguably in conflict and is also presumed to have intended that the general provision would make way for the specific, even though it is not expressly acknowledged in the words of the legislation.
- [29]This is not a case where a later enactment either of another Act or of a provision in the same Act creates an inconsistency. In those cases, it might be accepted that the legislature’s intent was to override the earlier provision by the later.[11] There were substantial amendments to s. 95 in 2014, which deals with the admissibility of computer-generated documents, but there was no amendment to either of ss. 86 and 116, which can also be concerned with the admissibility of computer-generated documents. That Parliament has not seen fit to clarify the potential conflict between ss. 86 and 116 tends to confirm that its intent was, and is, that the latter prevails over the former, but only in respect of machine produced copies.
- [30]I do not accept the prosecution position that s. 116 renders s. 86 redundant, but it does render it inapplicable where the issue is the admissibility of machine produced copies of documents. It follows that I do not accept that s. 86 applies to what in this matter are all machine produced copies, whether by photocopying or by printing of computer-generated documents.
- [31]That finding raises an issue not the subject of submissions. Section 116 stipulates a pre-requisite to admissibility, namely satisfaction that the copy was taken or made from the original document by means of a machine. Each of Mr Case and Mr Lewin were not personally involved in the copying, whether by photocopying or printing a computer-generated image, of most of the documents, and they cannot now identify which documents they were personally involved in copying. They have each given evidence of their understanding that the relevant documents were identified and copied before being produced under the s. 33 notice. Copies were created because they were informed by the notice that they could produce copies.
- [32]In the circumstances, I am satisfied that each of the documents were photocopies of hard copy originals or were printouts of computer-generated images. This, in fact, was the whole premise of the s. 86 argument by which the defendant objected to the totality of the documents being admitted. My inspection of each document fails to cast doubt on that conclusion.
- [33]It remains to decide if the individual documents are books of account, which will be determined by my inspection of each of the documents said by the prosecution to be admissible under the book of account provisions.
- [34]In addition to recording financial transactions of the undertaking, the document must also be used in the ordinary course of the undertaking. In the case of the Mills Oakley documents, Mr Lewin has expressly stated that to be so,[12] and it is otherwise implicit in his statements and testimony. Mr Case has not explicitly said that in either of his statements[13] but, again, it is implicit in them. Further, the respective s. 33 notices required production of documents that were in the possession of the respective firms. The documents sought, and the circumstances by which the firms are said to be in possession of them, lends substantial support to the proposition that they were used in the ordinary course of the undertaking.
- [35]Further, I also consider that bank records, and the like, that are accessed online by the business are records used in the ordinary course of the business, even though the records may strictly be held on a server or other platform operated by the bank. To hold otherwise would be to ignore the realities of modern day business and banking practices.
- [36]Accordingly, I am satisfied that this has been established. My inspection of each document fails to cast doubt on that conclusion.
- Findings
- [37]In order to decide whether each of the documents are a book of account, I have considered each document individually. What follows are extracts of the various tables in the statements of Mr Case and Mr Lewin, limited only to the documents which the prosecution contends are admissible as books of account. Written in bold in each entry is my ruling, in short form. Also included is an explanation where one is required; some are so obvious they require no explanation.
- [38]In reaching those conclusions I have also had regard to the unchallenged observations about the nature of the documents made by each of Mr Case and Mr Lewin in their respective last statements.
The McCullough Robertson documents
- [39]Table 2
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0037.0001.0003 | 11/04/2016 | McCullough Robertson Trust Account Statement (redacted) Admissible. |
GEM.0037.0001.0007 | 7/10/2015 | St George Business Banking Online Transaction History Report 334040 – 0000551220261 – Period 07/10/2015 to 07/10/2015 (redacted) Admissible. |
GEM.0037.0001.0009 | 07/10/2015 | Email International [email protected] to Accounts Assist sent 7 October 2015 Subject – Inward Remittance SGB1510070307802 Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0037.0001.0011 | 07/10/2015 | McCullough Robertson – Trust Receipt 145461 Admissible. |
GEM.0037.0001.0012 | 21/12/2015 | St George Business Banking Online Transaction History Report 334040 – 0000551220261 – Period 21/12/2015 to 21/12/2015 (redacted) Admissible. |
GEM.0037.0001.0015 | 11/03/2016 | Email from Kerri Fuller to Courtney Bobbermien sent 11 March 2016 – Subject – RE: Trace Requested 10/03 (redacted) Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0037.0001.0017 | 11/04/2016 | Email from Courtney Bobbermien to Authors (All) Subject – Unclaimed trust deposits to 8 April 2016 (redacted) Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0037.0001.0020 | 07/10/2016 | St George Trust Account Cheque No: E0014760 Admissible. |
GEM.0037.0001.0021 | 07/10/2015 | St George Business banking Online RTGS Transaction – From Account 0000551220261 Amount $60,000,000.00 dated 07/10/2015 (2 pages) Admissible. and St George Business banking Online RTGS Transaction – From Account 00005511220261 Amount $53633857.55 dated 07/10/2015 (2 pages) Admissible. and St George Business Banking Print RTGSID:39709344 dated 07/10/2015 (1 page) Admissible. and St George Business Banking Print RTGSID:39709387 dated 07/10/2015 (1 page) Admissible. |
GEM.0037.0001.0027 | 04/08/2015 | McCullough Robertson Office form – payment request (Domestic telegraphic transfer from trust) Accounts – Requested by Brett Heading – Date required 4 August 2015. Admissible. |
GEM.0037.0001.0028 | 07/10/2015 | Letter from Jenny Hutson, G8 Education to Mr Stewart Ebbott, McCullough Robertson dated 7 October 2015. Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0037.0001.0034 | 12/04/2016 | “Client Account detail – Page 1 of 1 – Matter Description: Project Marble – Client name: G8 Education Ltd (redacted) Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0037.0001.0036 | 07/10/2016 | Email Vanessa Knight to Brett Heading “FW: Funds Transfer” sent 7 October 2015 9.57AM with attached letter G8 Education to McCullough Robertson dated 7 October 2015 Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. and Email Stewart Ebbott to Jenny Hutson “RE: Funds Transfer” sent 7 October 2015 9.25am with attached letter G8 Education to McCullough Robertson dated 7 October 2015 Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0037.0001.0041 | 07/10/2015 | Email Accounts Assist to Vanessa Knight – Subject – Receipt Request sent 7 October 2015 9.09AM Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. and Email Accounts Assist to Vanessa Knight – Subject – Receipt Request sent 7 October 2015 9.08AM Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. and Email Courtney Bobbermien on behalf of Accounts Assist to Vanessa Knight – Subject – FW: Inward Remittance sent 7 October 2015 9.04AM (2 pages) Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
- [40]Table 3
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0073.0001.0004 | 12/07/2016 | McCullough Robertson Trust account statement from 01/10/2015 to 31/12/2015 (pages 1 and 2 of 3) Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0006 | 12/07/2016 | McCullough Robertson Trust account statement from 01/10/2015 to 31/12/2015 (page 3 of 3) Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0007 | 21/07/2016 | Trust Ledger report from 01/0715 (sic) to 21/07/2016 – Account 5614 – 159785-00017 – G8 Education Ltd – Project Marble (redacted) Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0012 | 01/10/2015 | St George Business Banking Online – Transaction History report – McCullough Robertson Business Chq Acc – 334-040 – 0000512220261 – From 01/10/2015 to 01/10/2015 (redacted) Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0015 | 01/10/2015 | “01/10/2015 Bank Deposit List – Production Database – Bank Account 551220261 – 334000 Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0016 | 01/10/2015 | McCullough Robertson Trust Receipt 145372 Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0018 | 01/10/2015 | Email [email protected] to [email protected] dated 1 October 2015 11.31AM – Subject: Receipt Request – Matter: 159785 – 00017 Ref#: 14482 Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0019 | 21/07/2016 | “Client Accounts Detail – Matter Description Project Marble – Matter Number: 159785 – 00017 – Client Name: G8 Education Ltd – Account Type STGTRUST (redacted) Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0020 | 30/09/2015 | Email from Leigh Boyce to Brett Heading sent 30 September 2015 10:51AM – Subject: FW: Missed Call from +61730099800 Project Marble Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. and Email from Vanessa Knight to Stewart Ebbott sent 30 September 2015 11:02AM – Subject: FW: Missed Call from +61730099800 Project Marble Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0073.0001.0022 | 30/09/2015 | Email from Leigh Boyce to Vanessa Knight sent 30 September 2015 11:25AM – Subject: FW: Missed Call from +61730099800 Project Marble Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0073.0001.0023 | 30/09/2015 | Email from Leigh Boyce to Asher Bongiorno sent 30 September 2015 2:38PM – Subject: G8 Project Marble 159785-17 Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0073.0001.0024 | 30/09/2015 | Email from Asher Bongiorno to Mary-Anne Brady sent 30 September 2015 2:43PM – Subject: G8 Project Marble 159785-17 Admissible. This records the financial transaction in the sense of explaining the timing of the transaction. and Email Leigh Boyce to Jenny Hutson sent 30 September 2015 2:47PM – Subject: Cheque - Project Marble 159785-17 Admissible. This records the financial transaction in the sense of explaining the timing of the transaction. and email Asher Bongiorno to Mary-Anne Brady; Stewart Ebbott sent 30 September 2015 4:39PM – Subject: G8 Project Marble 159785-17 Admissible. This records the financial transaction in the sense of explaining the timing of the transaction. |
GEM.0073.0001.0028 | 01/10/2015 | Email from Vanessa Knight to Mary-Anne Brady; Stewart Ebbott sent 1 October 2015 11:28AM – Subject: Jenny just dropped the cheques in. I have receipted them with a special clearance … Admissible. This records the financial transaction in the sense of explaining the timing of the transaction. |
GEM.0073.0001.0029 | 01/10/2015 | Email Accounts Assist to Vanessa Knight sent 1 October 2015 11:31AM – Subject: Receipt Request and Email Accounts Assist to Vanessa Knight sent 1 October 2015 11:30AM – Subject: Receipt Request Admissible. |
GEM.0073.0001.0031 | 07/10/2015 | Email from Jenny Hutson to Stewart Ebbott sent 7 October 2015 9:23AM and attached letter from G8 Education to McCullough Robertson dated 7 October 2015 Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0073.0001.0033 | 07/10/2015 | Email from Stewart Ebbott to Jenny Hutson sent 7 October 2015 9:25AM – Subject: Re: Funds Transfer Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0073.0001.0034 | 07/10/2015 | Email Vanessa Knight to Brett Heading sent 7 October 2015 9:57AM – Subject: FW: Funds Transfer with attached letter from G8 Education to McCullough Robertson dated 7 October 2015 Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. and email Vanessa Knight to Derek Pocock sent 7 October 2015 11:07AM – Subject: FW: Payment processed to G8 Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. and email Mary-Anne Brady to Vanessa Knight; Stewart Ebbott sent 1 October 2015 11:50AM – Subject: Jenny just dropped the cheques in. I have receipted them with a special clearance … Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0073.0001.0038 | 07/10/2015 | St George Trust Account – Cheque No: E0014760 Admissible. |
- [41]Table 4
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0079.0001.0003 | 04/08/2016 | McCullough Robertson Trust Account Statement from 04/08/2015 to 04/08/2015 Admissible. |
GEM.0079.0001.0006 | 04/08/2016 | Trust Ledger reports – Date Range: 04/08/2015 to 04/08/2015 Admissible. |
GEM.0079.0001.0009 | 04/08/2015 | St George Business Banking Online Transaction History Report – from 04/08/2015 to 04/08/2015 Admissible. |
GEM.0079.0001.0012 | 05/08/2016 | Client Account Detail – Matter Description Project Marble – Matter Number 159785-00017 – Client Name G8 Education Ltd – Account Type 5620 (redacted) Admissible. and Client Accounts Detail – Matter description Project Marble – Matter Number 159785-00017 – Client Name G8 Education Ltd – Account Type STGTRUST Admissible. |
GEM.0079.0001.0014 | 04/08/2015 | McCullough Robertson Trust Receipt 144233 and St George Trust Account Cheque No: E0013816 Admissible. |
GEM.0079.0001.0016 | 04/08/2015 | St George Business Banking Online – Print RTGS-ID:38893956 Admissible. and St George Business Banking Online – RTGS Transaction Admissible. |
GEM.0079.0001.0018 | 04/08/2015 | McCullough Robertson Office form – payment request (Domestic telegraphic transfer from trust) – E13816 Admissible. |
GEM.0079.0001.0020 | 04/08/2015 | Letter from Jenny Hutson to Brett Heading dated 4 August 2015 – “Funds Transfer” Admissible. and Email Jenny Hutson to Brett Heading sent 4 August 2015 8:22AM – Subject: Funds today the balance can remain invested on a 24 hour call basis Admissible. and Email Vanessa Knight to Donna Tharenou sent 4 August 2015 8:31AM – Subject: FW: Funds today the balance can remain invested on a 24 hour call basis Admissible. This email records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0079.0001.0024 | 04/08/2015 | Email Vanessa Knight to Donna Tharenou sent 4 August 2015 8:43AM – Subject: FW: Funds today the balance can remain invested on a 24 hour call basis with attached letter Brett Heading to St George Bank dated 4 August 2015 – Subject: Request to withdraw investment Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0079.0001.0028 | 04/08/2015 | Email from Donna Tharenou to Vanessa Knight sent 4 August 2015 9:34AM – Subject: RE: I know have the 10 million instructions so will do the paperwork now so we are ready to roll Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0079.0001.0029 | 04/08/2015 | Email Donna Tharenou to Vanessa Knight sent 4 August 2015 9:59AM – Subject: Confirmation with attached St George Business Banking Online – RTGS Summary Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
- The Mills Oakley Documents
- [42]Table 1
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
G29.0026.0001.0003 | 16/07/2015 | WBC Payment Detail Report – From MOL Bris Trust Acc – MDP 034000482762 – To Shaw and Partners – 032000 – 441400 – AUD $1,915,518.62 Admissible. |
G29.0026.0001.0004 | 17/07/2015 | WBC Payment Detail Report – From MOL Bris Trust Acc – MDP 034000482762 – To Shaw and Partners – 032000 – 441400 – AUD $666,899.55 Admissible. |
G29.0026.0001.0005 | 22/07/2015 | WBC Payment Detail Report – From MOL Bris Trust Acc – MDP 034000482762 – To Shaw and Partners – 032000 – 441400 – AUD $2,636.685.62 Admissible. |
G29.0026.0001.0006 | 27/07/2015 | Payment Information - Payment Details - Office Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - From MOL Bris Trust Ace - MDP 034000482762 - To Shaw and Partners - 032000 - 441400 - AUD $1,069,952.90 Admissible. |
G29.0026.0001.0007 | 29/07/2015 | WBC Payment Detail Report - From MOL Bris Trust Ace - MDP 034000482762 - To Shaw and Partners - 032000 - 441400 – AUD $1,987,025.32 Admissible. |
G29.0026.0001.0008 | 03/08/2015 | WBC Payment Detail Report - From MOL Bris Trust Ace - MDP 034000482762 - To Shaw and Partners - 032000 - 441400 – AUD $298,271.70 Admissible. |
G29.0026.0001.0088 | 29/09/2015 | WBC Account Transaction List - Office Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Ace - MDP 034000 - 482762 - Period 14/07/2015 to 29/09/2015 Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0008 | 03/08/2015 | Deposit Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a remittance advice being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0033.0002.0009 | 03/08/2015 | WBC - Payment Detail Report - Debit A/c Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd MOL Bris Trust Ace MDP 034000 482762 -0 $298,271.70 - Beneficiary Details - Shaw and Partners - 032000 441400 Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0010 | 29/07/2015 | Trust Deposit Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a remittance advice being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0033.0002.0011 | 29/07/2015 | WBC - Payment Detail Report - Debit A/c Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd MOL Bris Trust Ace MDP 034000 482762 - $1,987,025.32 - Beneficiary Details - Shaw and Partners - 032000 441400 Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0012 | 28/07/2015 | Deposit Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a remittance advice being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0033.0002.0013 | 27/07/2015 | Payment Information - Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - Bank Ref 53605221 - From Account MOL Bris Trust Ace MDP 034000 482762 - $1 ,069,952.90 - Beneficiary Shaw and Partners - Account 032000 441400 Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0014 | 23/07/2015 | Funds Transfer Confirmation - 22 July 2015.pdf Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a remittance advice being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0033.0002.0015 | 22/07/2015 | WBC - Payment Detail Report - Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - From A/c MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP 034000 482762 - $2,636,685.62 - Beneficiary Shaw and Partners Account 032000 – 441400 Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0016 | 17/07/2015 | Untitled Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a remittance advice being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0033.0002.0017 | 17/07/2015 | WBC - Payment Detail Report - Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - From A/c MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP 034000 482762 - $666,899.55 - Beneficiary Shaw and Partners Account 032000 – 441400 Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0018 | 16/07/2015 | Remittance Advice (16 July 2015).pdf Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a remittance advice being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0033.0002.0019 | 16/07/2015 | WBC - Payment Detail Report - Mills Oakley Lawyers Ply Ltd - From A/c MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP 034000 482762 - $1,915,518.62 - Beneficiary Shaw and Partners Account 032000 – 441400 Admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0013 | 05/08/2015 | WBC Payment Detail Report - From: MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000482762 - To: G8 Education Limited - 304123 - 0560167 – AUD $5,000,000.00 Admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0014 | 05/08/2015 | WBC Payment Detail Report - From: MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000482762 - To: G8 Education Limited - 304123 - 0560167 – AUD $10,000,000.00 Admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0015 | 05/08/2015 | WBC Payment Detail Report - From: MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000482762 - To: G8 Education Limited - 304123 - 0560167 – AUD $10,000,000.00 Admissible. |
- [43]Table 2
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0018.0001.0319 | 01/02/2016 | WBC Payment Details - Value Date 16/07/2015- From Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000 - 482762 - To Shaw and Partners – AUD $1,915,518.62 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0325 | 01/02/2016 | WBC Payment Details - Value Date 17/07/2015 - From Mills Oakley Lawyers - MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000 - 482762 - To Shaw and Partners - AUD $666,899.55 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0331 | 01/02/2016 | WBC Payment Details - Value Date 22/07/2015 - From Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000 - 482762 - To Shaw and Partners – AUD $2,636,685.62 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0334 | 01/02/2016 | WBC Payment Details - Value Date 27/07/2015 - From Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000 - 482762 - To Shaw and Partners – AUD $1,069,952.90 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0342 | 01/02/2016 | WBC Payment Details - Value Date 29/07/2015 - From Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000 - 482762 - To Shaw and Partners – AUD $1,987,025.32 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0348 | 01/02/2016 | WBC Payment Details - Value Date 03/08/2015 - Form Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 034000 - 482762 - To Shaw and Partners – AUD $298,271.70 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0353 | 01/02/2016 | WBC Payment Details - Value Date 05/08/2015 - From Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP - 032000 - 482762 - To G8 Education Ltd – AUD $5,000,000.00 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0373 | 01/02/2016 | WBC Payment Details - Value Date 07/10/2015 - From Mills Oakley Lawyers Pty Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Acc MDP – 034000 – 482762 – To McCullough Robertson Tru – AUD $9,071,490.00 Admissible. |
- [44]Table 3
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0018.0001.0015 | 01/02/2016 | Trust Ledger - Matter 9089441 – Client lnqenius Communications Ptv Ltd Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0020 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 15/07/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Cleared Funds $15,000,000.00 Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0021 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 16/07/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client A/c West Bridge Hold P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0022 | 17/07/2015 | Trust Ledger to 17/07/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0023 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 22/07/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0024 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 27/07/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds -Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0025 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 29/07/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds -Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0026 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 03/08/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0028 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 05/08/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0030 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 11/08/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0032 | 01/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 22/09/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0034 | 04/04/2016 | Trust Ledger to 30/09/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client Perpetual Nominees - Description 20- 22 Mort Street Port Macquarie - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0036 | 30/03/2016 | Trust Ledger to 07/10/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client lngenius Comm P/L - Description Corporate Advice - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0033.0002.0038 | 30/03/2016 | Trust Ledger to 21/12/2015 - Matter 9089441 - Client lngenius Comm P/L - Description Corporate Advice - RTGS High Value Payment Ref No 0366010 G8 Education Ltd Project Junior Loan Funds - Shaw & Partners - Client West Bridge Holdings P/L Admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0002 | 19/04/2016 | Trust Ledger - For All Transactions - Matter: 9109426 - Client: G8 Education Limited Admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0020 | 29/09/2015 | Trust Ledgers Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to trust ledgers being attached but which are not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0042.0001.0021 | 29/09/2015 | Trust Ledger For All Transactions - Matter: 9109426 - Client: G8 Education Limited Admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0022 | 29/09/2015 | Trust Ledger For All Transactions - Matter: 9089441 - Client: Perpetual Nominees Admissible. |
- [45]Table 4
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0042.0001.0017 | 31/08/2015 | WBC - Statutory Trust Account Solicitors - Statement No 63 - Mills Oakley Lawyers Law Practice Trust Account - 034000 - 482762 - Period 31/07/2015 to 31/08/2015 Admissible. |
- [46]Table 5
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0093.0001.0002 | 05/08/2015 | Trust Statement of Account as at 18 December 2015 – G8 Education Ltd Settlement Funds Admissible. |
- [47]Table 6
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0093.0001.0003 | 04/08/2015 | Mills Oakley Lawyers - Combined Ledger Card - Matter 9109426 G8 Education Ltd - General Matters Admissible. |
- [48]Table 8
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
G29.0026.0001.0088 | 29/09/2015 | WBC Account Transaction List - Office Mills Oakley Lawyers Ply Ltd - MOL Bris Trust Ace - MDP 034000 - 482762 - Period 14/07/2015 to 29/09/2015 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0225 | 15/07/2015 | Law Practice Trust Account Receipt #10237 $15,000,000.00 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0365 | 22/09/2015 | Law Practice Trust Account Receipt #10846 $8,574,353.71 Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0226 | 14/07/2015 | WBC Transaction Details - Mills Oakley Lawyers - MOL Bris Trust Ace MDP 034000 482762 - Amount $1,500,000.00 CR Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0227 | 29/01/2016 | WBC Account Transaction List - Mills Oakley Lawyers - MOL Bris Trust Ace MDP – 034000 - 482762 - Period 14/07/2015 to 14/07/2015 Admissible. |
- [49]Table 10
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0018.0001.0228 | 14/07/2015 | Deposit Into the Trust Account Admissible. This email chain records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0018.0001.0320 | 16/07/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0321 | 16/07/2015 | Trust Account EFT - Required to be Processed Urgently Admissible. This email records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0018.0001.0326 | 17/07/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requestion Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0327 | 17/07/2015 | Trust Account EFT for Urgent Processing This Morning Admissible. This email records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0018.0001.0332 | 22/07/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0333 | 22/07/2015 | Trust Account EFT for Processing Today Admissible. This email contains sufficient detail to show that it records the financial transaction the subject of the last entry and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0018.0001.0335 | 27/07/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0336 | 27/07/2015 | Trust Account Funds Transfer for Processing Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a funds transfer being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0018.0001.0343 | 28/07/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible |
GEM.0018.0001.0344 | 28/07/2015 | Trust Account Deposit for Processing Tomorrow - Wednesday 29/07/2015 Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a funds transfer being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0018.0001.0349 | 31/07/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0350 | 31/07/2015 | Trust Account Funds Transfer for Processing Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a funds transfer being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0018.0001.0354 | 05/08/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0355 | 05/08/2015 | Trust EFT Requisitions Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a funds transfer being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0018.0001.0361 | 11/08/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0362 | 11/08/2015 | Trust Cheque Request Urgent Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a request for a trust cheque and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0018.0001.0366 | 22/09/2015 | Trust Receipt Advice Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0368 | 22/09/2015 | Trust Account Receipt Urgent Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a trust account receipt and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0018.0001.0371 | 02/10/2015 | Authority to Release Trust Monies Admissible. This records the financial transaction and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. |
GEM.0018.0001.0374 | 30/09/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible |
GEM.0018.0001.0375 | 30/09/2015 | Trust Cheque Request Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a trust account receipt and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0018.0001.0380 | 02/10/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible. |
GEM.0018.0001.0381 | 02/10/2015 | Trust Account EFT Not Admissible. This document is an email that refers to a funds transfer being attached but which is not attached and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0018.0001.0382 | 18/12/2015 | Trust Cheque / EFT Requisition Admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0006 | 04/08/2015 | Law Practice Trust Account Receipt - Trust Account Receipt No: 10373 - Trust: $10,000,000.00 Admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0007 | 04/08/2015 | Trust Account Deposits Into The Brisbane Trust Account Admissible. This email records the financial transaction the subject of the last entry and records a thing dealt with by the undertaking. It sufficiently refers to the previous entry to make it admissible. |
GEM.0042.0001.0016 | 05/08/2015 | Trust Cheque/ EFT Registration - Client Name: G8 Education Limited - Matter No: 9109426 -Amount: $10,000,000.00 Admissible. |
GEM.0093.0002.0021 | 18/05/2016 | img-518095820-0001. pdf This is attached to the sender's email of Subject- Trust Cheque- EFT Requisition dated 11 August 2016.PDF Admissible. |
GEM.0093.0002.0036 | 14/07/2015 | RE: Deposit into the trust account Admissible. This email sufficiently refers the matter number and an amount of money otherwise revealed in the material to make it admissible. |
GEM.0093.0002.0047 | 16/07/2015 | Trust account EFT - required to be processed urgently Not Admissible. This document is an email that requests an urgent processing of an EFT funds transfer and about which no other details are apparent. If it is meant to refer to some other document that is admissible, that is not clear. I am not satisfied that it is a book of account, as defined. |
GEM.0093.0002.0048 | 16/07/2015 | img-716095654-0001.pdf Admissible. |
GEM.0093.0002.0051 | 22/09/2015 | img-922142601-0001.pdf Admissible. |
GEM.0093.0002.0081 | 18/05/2016 | img-518095836-0001 .pdf This is attached to the sender's email of Subject- G8 Education Limited - Trust cheque - EFT Requisition dated 5 August 2015.PDF Admissible. |
Consideration of the Business Records basis of admissibility
The parties’ submissions
- [50]The defendant raises three principal submissions opposing the tendering of identified documents as business records, both in her initial submissions and in reply.
- [51]First, it is said that the chapeau to s. 93(1) has not been satisfied as the prosecution has not identified with precision what statements within the documents are admissible as evidence of the fact. It is said that must be done for each statement within each document and cannot be approached on a group basis.[14]
- [52]Second, it is argued that s. 93(1)(a) has not been satisfied as it cannot be shown that the information in the document was supplied by a person who had, or may reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in the information they supplied. It is argued that the requirement of reasonableness highlights the fact that speculation cannot be used. It is also argued that, on the basis of English cases, this requirement makes computer-generated documents difficult to admit under this style of provision.
- [53]Thirdly, and on the understanding that the prosecution was relying on s. 93(1)(b)(iv) only, the prosecution has failed to establish any of the persons who supplied the respective pieces of information to have any recollection of that information. Given the significance of the events, involving an ASIC investigation shortly thereafter, it cannot be reasonably supposed those persons had no recollection at all of the information supplied.
- [54]The prosecution accepts that the only statements that are made admissible by s. 93 are those that would be admissible if given in oral evidence. Therefore, it does not allow statements that would be hearsay, if given orally, to be admitted. It submits that the business records chart the history of the business operations, including the movement of monies relevant to the charges, and so some of the statements are admissible to prove the fact they were made rather than being admissible as to the truth of the assertion. It accepts that at some stage it will have to particularise what statement it precisely relies upon, but contends that it is unable to do so at the time of the hearing as there were still discussions on foot with the defendant’s legal representatives as to the admissibility of other evidence.
- [55]The prosecution confirmed that its reliance in terms of s. 93(1)(b) was on paragraph (iv) only. It highlighted that what was required was reasonable supposition of the matters stated therein, and not actual proof or some higher standard of satisfaction. It accepted that the content of the information in the document will, in part, help inform the reasonableness of any supposition.
Consideration
- [56]In every instance where the prosecution indicated that the subject document was admissible either as a book of account or as a business record, the document has been ruled to be admissible as a book of account. There is no need to consider those documents’ admissibility as business records. The only consideration that remains is to the documents that are said to be admissible as business records only.
- [57]I accept, as does the prosecution, that at some point they must precisely identify the statement that is sought to be admitted. While the defendant presses that rulings should be made now, I think that is inappropriate where I was informed that, in effect, the identification of those statements is affected by discussions between the parties as to other objections to evidence. The identification will have to be made before the commencement of the trial, but I will afford the prosecution a little extra time to undertake that process.
- [58]However, some of the subject documents are concerned with single entries, and so they are thereby identified. I have considered the admissibility of those documents below.
Findings
- [59]Consistent with the process used in relation to books of account, in order to decide whether each of the documents are a business record, I have considered each document individually.
- [60]What follows are extracts of the various tables in the statements of Mr Case and Mr Lewin, limited only to the documents which the prosecution contends are admissible as business records. Written in bold in each entry is my ruling, in short form. In reaching those conclusions I have also had regard to the unchallenged observations made by each of Mr Case and Mr Lewin about the documents in their respective last statements.
The McCullough Robertson documents
- [61]Table 1
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0010.0001.0185 | 13/07/2015 | Company register of West Bridge Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 607 036 028 I decline to rule on admissibility until the statement sought to be made admissible is precisely identified. |
GEM.0010.0002.0012 | 08/06/2016 | RightFax FaxUtil – Fax transmission record – 13.07.2015 (redacted) I decline to rule on admissibility until the statement sought to be made admissible is precisely identified. |
GEM.0010.0002.0013 | 13/07/2015 | Outlook Calendar extract “JAK/JBH – Appointment” 13.07.2015 – 9.15am-1pm Admissible. It is a single-entry document, and so the fact has been identified, which is the existence of an appointment in the booking system. The document forms part of the record relating to the business. The person who entered the booking into the system has personal knowledge of that entry being made and cannot reasonably be supposed to have any recollection of having done so given the passage of time. |
GEM.0010.0002.0014 | 10/06/2016 | “MR 11.9 – Calendar – Microsoft Outlook” 13 July 2015 (redacted) Admissible. It is a single-entry document, and so the fact has been identified, which is the existence of a meeting room being booked in the booking system. The document forms part of the record relating to the business. The person who entered the booking into the system has personal knowledge of that entry being made and cannot reasonably be supposed to have any recollection of having done so given the passage of time. |
GEM.0010.0002.0015 | 13/07/2015 | Outlook Calendar extract “Meeting Rooms Level 11” for 13 July 2015 (redacted) Admissible. It is a single-entry document, and so the fact has been identified, which is the existence of a meeting room being booked in the booking system. The document forms part of the record relating to the business. The person who entered the booking into the system has personal knowledge of that entry being made and cannot reasonably be supposed to have any recollection of having done so given the passage of time. |
- [62]Table 5
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0090.0001.0004 | 29/06/2015 | Email from Leisa McDonald to Stewart Ebbott and Brett Heading sent 29 June 2015 4:41PM – Subject: Approval required for G8 Education Ltd – Project Marble – checks and searches and email Stewart Ebbott to Leisa McDonald and Brett Heading sent 29 June 2015 10:06PM – Subject: RE: Approval required for G8 Education Ltd – Project Marble – checks and searches and email Leisa McDonald to Stewart Ebbott sent 30 June 2015 9:16AM – Subject: Open for billing – costs agreement – G8 Education Ltd – Project Marble 159785-00017 I decline to rule on the admissibility of any of these emails until the statements sought to be made admissible are precisely identified. |
GEM.0090.0001.0008 | 10/02/2016 | McCullough Robertson Office form – matter closure record and Matter archive audit report and Folder listing and Trust account Statement and Folder List with handwritten annotations I decline to rule on the admissibility of any of these documents until the statements sought to be made admissible are precisely identified. |
GEM.0090.0001.0014 | 31/07/2015 | Bundle of documents beginning with Email from Vanessa Knight to [email protected] sent 31 July 2015 7:07AM – Subject: Authority to invest (107 pages) I decline to rule on the admissibility of any of these documents until the statements sought to be made admissible are precisely identified. |
- The Mills Oakley Documents
- [63]Table 7
Document ID | Document Date | Description |
GEM.0093.0001.0011 | 04/08/2015 | Extract From Mills Oakley Database Not admissible. In the absence of direct evidence, it cannot be said with any confidence that the information was provided by a person with personal knowledge of the information. It is reasonably open to suspect that whoever entered the information might have been told it by someone else, or that some system (including the computer system itself generated it automatically). |
Footnotes
[1] [2025] QDCPR 2.
[2] s. 84 of the Evidence Act 1977. (“the Act”)
[3] s. 93 of the Act.
[4] Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively.
[5] Section 3 and Schedule 3 of the Act.
[6] (1998) 194 CLR 355, [69]-[71].
[7] (1997) 187 CLR 384, 408.
[8] (2019) 269 CLR 507, [32]-[37].
[9] [1965] 1 AC 1001.
[10] Hansard of Queensland Parliament, 6 September 1977, page 386.
[11] Ross v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 432 per Gibbs J at 440 with other members of the Court agreeing.
[12] Exhibit 3, statement of Stuart Andrew Lewin dated 16 December 2024, paragraph 17.
[13] Both part of exhibit 2.
[14] Sio v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 47, [60]-[61].