Fraud case tossed
Judge says ‘significant possibility’ pair innocent
TWO men found guilty of Australia’s biggest art fraud have had their convictions quashed after the prosecution sensationally conceded there was a “significant possibility” the men were innocent.
Art dealer Peter Gant and art conservator Mohamed Siddique walked free from the Supreme Court of Appeal yesterday after a last-minute concession from prosecutors.
The Crown had claimed Mr Siddique painted the artworks in his Collingwood studio in 2007 and Mr Gant then passed them off as original works by renowned Australian artist Brett Whiteley.
But they defended the charges from the outset and were adamant the sold paintings were Whiteley originals created in 1988.
The Blue Lavender Bay painting was sold for $2.5 million to Sydney chairman Andrew Pridham in 2007 and the Orange Lavender Bay sold for $1.1 million to Sydney luxury car dealer Steven Nasteski in 2009.
But Crown prosecutor Daniel Gurvich QC told the court all charges should be acquitted as “there is significant possibility that innocent men were convicted”.
Mr Gurvich said they were unable to prove two witnesses who provided evidence that the paintings were real were mistaken.
When Justice Mark Weinberg asked why the Crown did not notify the court until late on Wednesday about their decision, he said: “That’s a matter of some regret.”
After a short adjournment, Justice Weinberg and other presiding judges, Stephen McLeish and Phillip Priest, returned to the court and quashed the convictions.
Justice Weinberg said cases of wrongful conviction were “rare” but in this case, the jury did not get it right.
“This case is a rare and almost unique instance of the system having failed,” he said.
He highlighted how the case had considerably disrupted the court and said they would take aim at the prosecution in its written findings.
He said Justice Michael Croucher, who heard the trial, had “acknowledged deficiencies in the case at a very early stage.”
Justice Croucher had last year offered the jury the chance to acquit the pair, saying the evidence of two wit- nesses torpedoed prosecution case.
Even when the jury pressed on and came back with a guilty verdict in November, Justice Croucher took the unusual step to express his concerns.
He said there was a “powerful” case for the verdict to be considered unsafe and allowed the men to walk free until they faced the Court of Appeal.
Outside court both men declined to comment. the