Sayer-Jones v R

Ground 2: There was a miscarriage of justice because the Crown departed from the position articulated before trial that the civil proceedings brought by Marlinspike Debt Acquisitions Pty Ltd against The Undone Pty Ltd were not a vexatious abuse of process.

2. Mr Sayer-Jones’ appeal is listed to commence in the Court of Criminal Appeal on Wednesday 26 November 2025.

3. On 18 November 2025, Acting Registrar Clayton declined Mr Sayer-Jones’ application filed the previous day giving notice to the Respondent pursuant to s 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 for the production of the following documents:

1. The police statement of Robert Bruce McLennan relating to the prosecution of Robert Lyndon Sayer-Jones.

2. The disclosure affidavit of Robert Bruce McLennan relating to the prosecution of Robert Lyndon Sayer-Jones.

3. A copy of any email, statement, or other document indicating that the Crown would allege at Mr. Sayer-Jones' trial that Jordan Bowie Gravestein was a non-existent person.

4. A copy of any email, statement, or other document indicating that the Crown would rely on silence in civil proceedings as circumstantial evidence of guilt at Mr. Sayer-Jones' trial.

5. A copy of any email, statement, or other document indicating that the Crown would rely on the failure to produce documents pursuant to the notice to produce issued by Resolve Litigation Lawyers as circumstantial evidence of guilt at Mr. Sayer-Jones trial.

6. A copy of any email, correspondence, statement, or other document prior to Mr. Sayer-Jones' trial on 5 June 2023 indicating that the Crown case was as articulated in the closing address of the learned crown prosecutor, Mark Hay.

4. Mr Sayer-Jones’ contention before the Acting Registrar was that the Crown altered its case theory without notice to him by alleging that he had commenced proceedings that amounted to a vexatious abuse of process and concocted a non-existent person. This is said by Mr Sayer-Jones to be in conflict with the charge he faced at trial which was only that he perverted the course of justice by making an affidavit in which he falsely deposed that he had sent documents to what were described as “the Undone parties” when he had not done so.

5. In my opinion, the decision of the Acting Registrar should be confirmed. This is for at least the following reasons.

6. First, the Court of Criminal Appeal proceedings have been thoroughly case managed by the Acting Registrar for some time. If Mr Sayer-Jones has wanted to rely upon documents in the possession of the Respondent that he intended to rely upon in his appeal, he could and should have done so long ago.

7. Secondly, and in a related sense, as Mr Sayer-Jones has conceded, success in his application for production would have necessitated the vacation of the hearing of the appeal less than a week before it is due to commence. The history of the proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal, as described by the Acting Registrar, does not support the making of an order that would lead to that result.

8. Thirdly, Mr Sayer-Jones’ contention, that the so-called vexatious concoction theory has arisen as an issue in the appeal only as the result of the Respondent’s submissions filed on 12 November 2025, is not correct. On the contrary, the “vexatious concoction theory” is in effect the very subject matter of Mr Sayer-Jones’ remaining ground of appeal. It is hardly surprising that the Respondent’s submissions should deal with it having regard to the prominence that the circumstances surrounding the essential facts that constituted the s 319 offence with which Mr Sayer-Jones was charged received at the trial.

**********