Noosa Bistro C fraud case: Reasons behind Jodi Louise Nuske’s retrial

A Star Wars analogy features in the reasoning for a major twist in a high-profile Noosa restaurant fraud case, detailed in newly released court documents.

Jodi Louise Nuske leaves Maroochydore District Court. Pictured: Patrick Woods.

A prosecutor’s use of the term “jedi mind trick” has been flagged as a major factor in the decision to allow a retrial of a high-profile Noosa restaurant fraud case.

The full list of reasons, pointing mostly to prosecution statements, was unveiled in Court of Appeal documents released on Friday.

Jodi Louise Nuske, a former employee of Bistro C in Noosa, was convicted in the Maroochydore District Court last year of fraud of more than $30,000 but she appealed that decision.

Her appeal was allowed, her conviction was set aside, and a retrial ordered for November this year.

The now-published court documents showed nine statements made by the prosecution during the trial were among the reasons for the retrial decision.

Justice Debra Mullins said one of those statements was of “significant concern”.

“The use of the analogy ‘jedi mind trick’ was completely inappropriate,” she said.

“It carries with it the suggestion that the appellant was unfairly trying to influence the jury by the repetition of her explanation, when the explanation was her response to the questions being asked of her.

“The use of the description ‘jedi mind trick’ cannot be excused as an advocate’s flourish as it was an unfair attack on the appellant’s

credibility.”

The judge said the prosecutor also did not cross-examine Ms Nuske over a contention about her salary and being on leave and instead relied on sets of documents.

“In other words, a submission on the appellant’s general credibility was made from the inconsistency between two sets of documents, when the appellant was not cross-examined on that inconsistency,” Justice Mullins said.

The justice said “in the context of a lengthy trial” an “occasional slip-up” would not result in a miscarriage of justice.

“The problem in this trial is that the aggregation of statements … in conjunction with the unfair submissions that are the third aspect of ground 1 meant that the jury’s assessment of the appellant’s credibility may have been affected and the appellant had therefore been denied her fundamental right to a fair trial,” she said.

Justices David Boddice and Glenn Martin agreed with Justice Mullins’ statements.

Justice Boddice also said he also would have allowed the appeal for another reason.

“A miscarriage of justice did arise by reason of the trial judge’s failure to give a specific direction that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant, for her decision not to adduce further financial evidence,” he said.