Convicted fraudster uses ‘hysterical reaction’ to dog death in failed legal appeal

An appeal attempt by a former Queensland investment guru who conned almost $300,000 from his victims has been thrown out, despite his claims of “diagnosed mental disabilities”.

Dr Roger Munro at Brisbane Supreme Court. Pics Tara Croser.

A former Queensland investment guru who conned almost $300,000 out of his victims, has used his wife’s “hysterical reaction” to the death of her “canine companion of 16 years” in his legal appeal against his conviction and prison sentence.

Dr Roger Gareth Munro pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud in July 2021 related to three victims. Between March 2013 and May 2014, one victim invested $220,000, while a couple invested $39,600 and $40,000, but none of the $299,600 was ever recovered.

The investments were made in R G Munro Futures Pty Ltd and a US company, Starport Futures Trading Corporation – both of which went into liquidation after receiving the funds.

Dr Munro claimed the invested funds remained held in the United States, but charges were later laid by ASIC following a subsequent request made by Dr Munro to investors to invest with him in a new share trading scheme known as TradeStation Futures Trading Fund.

Dr Roger Munro.

After pleading guilty, but prior to being sentenced, Dr Munro tried to withdraw his guilty pleas. After months of legal discussions, this application was rejected by Judge Paul Smith.

Dr Munro was sentenced in May 2022 to four-and-a-half years behind bars, but this was to be suspended after serving 15 months, due to Dr Munro’s and his wife’s health issues.

Regardless, Dr Munro took his case to the Court of Appeal – appealing against his conviction claiming that the judge was wrong to not allow his guilty pleas to be vacated, and also seeking to add eight new pages of correspondence and medical information as evidence.

In their joint decision published this week, Court of Appeal judges Debra Mullins, John Bond, and Glenn Martin said Dr Munro had not shown “how specific findings were in error”.

The problem with the appellant’s submissions, both written and oral, is that he does not endeavour to show how specific findings were in error by reference to other evidence that was before the primary judge,” the appeal decision said.

“To the extent that Dr Munro’s submissions purport to assert matters of evidence that were not before the primary judge, those evidentiary matters will not be considered on this appeal.

“[For example], Dr Munro identifies matters affecting his decision to plead guilty as ‘the prescribed medication load of [himself], his diagnosed mental disabilities and his latent medical issues including a serious, undiagnosed disease of the coronary arteries’.

“There was no evidence … [provided] as to the medication he was taking on 18 and 19 July 2021 and the effect of the medication on him.”

In the appeal, Dr Munro – who represented himself – outlined the “alternative findings” he believed Judge Paul Smith should have made, in response to his application to withdraw his guilty pleas.

These included claims that his first set of lawyers gave him “flawed and misleading advice … on the legal processes required to vacate a guilty plea” and they also applied “physical and intellectual duress … to induce him to accept the prosecution’s offer”.

Dr Munro also pointed to a number of health factors at the time such as “the stress and emotion” he felt as a result of his wife’s “hysterical reaction” to the death of her dog, the “exhaustion” affecting his body and mind at the time, as well as his “diagnosed mental disabilities”.

All three appeal judges were in agreement in dismissing the appeal.

“No argument was advanced as to why the credit findings made by the primary judge should be disregarded by this court,” John Bond said in the decision.

“In that context and given the lack of any relevant supplementation of the record, it is difficult to see how the appellant could ever have discharged his onus of persuading this court that it is appropriate to go behind his pleas.

“Certainly, there was nothing in the arguments which he did present, which did so.”