Login
Convictions set aside for criminal lawyer jailed for fraud
A high-profile criminal solicitor jailed for fraud had his convictions overturned and will face a fresh trial because the primary judge failed to properly consider the impact of a mental health relapse.
Naomi Neilson
Michael Frederick Bosscher, a highly experienced criminal solicitor, had convictions for fraud and producing false costs agreements set aside by the Queensland Supreme Court and will face a fresh trial.
In a decision handed down late last week, Justices Peter Flanagan, David Boddice, and Susan Brown found Judge Clare “occasioned a miscarriage of justice” by failing to discharge the jury after Bosscher’s mental health relapse resulted in a significant delay to the trial.
“The continuation of the trial after a 12-day delay, which occurred while the Crown’s primary witness was under cross-examination and after the appellant had suffered a relapse of his major depressive disorder, resulted in significant prejudice and rendered the trial unfair,” the Supreme Court bench determined in written reasons.
At the 2023 trial, the Crown alleged Bosscher and colleagues Alexander Jones and Timothy Meehan came up with a plan to divert cash payments away from the company and into their own pockets.
Meehan, the most significant of the 37 witnesses called by the Crown, gave evidence it was Bosscher who allegedly came up with the arrangement and was responsible for determining who got what.
Bosscher, who represented himself, had cross-examined Meehan for two days before informing the court he was unwell. He produced a psychologist report that expressed concern his current condition would deteriorate further if he was “compelled to continue”.
Judge Clare’s immediate reaction was that “being tried for a serious offence is not likely to help anybody’s mental health”.
She concluded the continuation would not be unfair to Bosscher.
“The major risk to Bosscher’s health seems to be the prosecution itself. The best way to address that, in my view, is to bring the matter to a resolution,” Judge Clare said in her determination.
Justices Flanagan, Boddice, and Brown said the prejudice that arose from the delay could not be addressed by Judge Clare’s proposal that the jury could be reminded of parts of Meehan’s evidence, particularly as she did not reference “significant parts” of Bosscher’s case that emerged during the cross-examination.
That included Meehan’s alleged admission to stealing from Bosscher Lawyers and the impact of this on the Crown’s case.
“When regard is had to the importance of Meehan’s evidence, the fact that the delay occurred in the course of his cross-examination, and the fact that the unchallenged medical evidence was that the appellant would be operating at a reduced capacity upon the trial’s resumption, there was a real chance that the jury’s ability to assess Meehan’s credibility may have been compromised,” the bench said.
The case is R v Bosscher [2024] QCA 253 (13 December 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
