I would now like to deal with another area entirely and it relates to evidence that was adduced through Wickerson and one or two other witnesses in relation to Mr Corp. It is only with respect to Mr Corp that this evidence is led and the evidence is led to suggest that he did things during the relevant time towards the end that showed he was conscious of having broken the law so it is, if you like, consciousness of guilt type evidence.
The evidence I refer to - and again reiterate these are the allegations, they are not - they are disputed. The evidence I refer to is, firstly, that of Wickerson, Dodd and perhaps Soares to the effect that Mr Corp gave instructions that faxes he had sent and copies of those sent to him be removed from the files of the companies Davenrite, Happle and Courtenay and shredded or destroyed.
There is also the evidence that alleges that in 1998 Mr Corp called in to the offices of Abacus in London and checked files to see if it was done and the prosecution also asserts that Mr Corp gifted the companies Davenrite, Happle and Courtenay away to people he didn't know to distance himself from those companies.
Finally the prosecution alleges that he instructed Wickerson to backdate documents relating to authorities given to brokers of Davenrite, Happle and Courtenay to deal with Mr Corp direct, again, the prosecution said, an attempt to distance himself. With respect to the allegations of instructions to Wickerson to destroy faxes, of course that is also the subject of count 35 against Mr Corp alone and it is alleged in that count that he did that in 1998.
I shall deal with that separately tomorrow but for the purposes of my present remarks, we are not so concerned with whether it was 98 or not but with whether it was done.
The prosecution alleges that Mr Corp was a very experienced accountant and businessman familiar with trading and the stock exchange and the laws and rules and regs that apply in the industry, and the prosecution says that you should draw an inference as to that. The prosecution alleges that Mr Corp knew what the term 'relevant interest' meant; that he wrote a letter or letters that are in evidence showing that he knew, and that anyway, being an accountant and trading in shares and being a careful company director, he would be likely to know, and the prosecution says you should find that he knew.
In other words, the prosecution says Mr Corp knew of the significance of documentary evidence that might show he controlled Davenrite, Happle or Courtenay; documents that could suggest those companies were accustomed to acting according to his wishes such as facsimiles. The prosecution says knowing that, Mr Corp's efforts to do the acts I have mentioned has significance and show that you can infer that he had - shows that he had a consciousness of guilt.
With respect to these matters, your first task, ladies and gentlemen, is to decide whether you are satisfied the alleged acts were done. That is the fundamental key finding. If you're not, then you can forget about this part that I'm dealing with: do you find beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged things were done? Did he give instructions to destroy faxes? Did he check that it was done? Did he instruct backdating of documents? Did he direct that companies be given away?
You have heard from prosecution witnesses that he did these things - mainly Wickerson, Dodd, Soares as to destruction. You have an asserted absence of written evidence of communications from Mr Corp - or to Mr Corp, save for the Ruane documents. As to the gifting of companies, you have the material from Pereira, Rump and Wollschlager, you have heard evidence to the contrary. However, submissions have been made - and argument has been made to the effect that you should not accept the evidence of Wickerson and it has been submitted that the assertion that Mr Corp instructed that the companies be gifted away is inherently unlikely given their value at the time being more than $2 million.
So if you are not satisfied any of those things happened, then you can put the issue of them aside and think no more about it, but if you are satisfied any of those things occurred and you find as a fact that it occurred, then you need to know what can be made of that - what use you would make of that. You need to consider whether Mr Corp did the act you find that he did if you do; that is, he gave the instructions as alleged because he had a consciousness of guilt. This requires the drawing of an inference, as I have explained earlier, remembering you can consider this in the light of all the evidence.
The question is: are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt Mr Corp did the act because of a consciousness of guilt? If it could have been done out of panic or fear he would be wrongly accused if investigators discovered these matters or some other reason you think possible, then it wouldn't be done out of a consciousness of guilt but would be done for another reason.
If you find Mr Corp did the act out of a consciousness of guilt, then you need next to consider whether that was a consciousness of guilt concerning the offences alleged, and more particularly, whether he was conscious in doing the act that he had a relevant interest in the mining companies, shares held by Davenrite, Happle and Courtenay and that he had not disclosed when required by law to do so.
If you were to find that he did have a consciousness of guilt of that, then you are able to consider whether that supports a conclusion of guilt of the offences alleged or any of them. I re-emphasise, none of this type of evidence has been led with respect to Mr Smith at all. This type of evidence is only led with respect to Mr Corp and can only be considered in your deliberations about the case relating to Mr Corp alone (3340 - 3342).