The case illustrates the application of the MacKenzie inconsistent verdicts test where an accused is convicted on one conspiracy charge and acquitted on another involving similar modus operandi but different co-conspirators, locations, durations, and quality of evidence. Differences in the nature, extent and quality of circumstantial evidence supporting each charge, including the availability of documentary evidence and the reliability of witnesses, provide a rational basis for different verdicts. Serious Commonwealth fraud offences involving losses exceeding $2.4 million and careful planning over four years warrant sentences giving real effect to general deterrence and denunciation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.