The former wife of famed Australian artist Brett Whiteley has expressed her shock after an appeal court quashed two men's convictions in Australia's biggest art fraud case.
On Thursday, Crown prosecutor Daniel Gurvich QC told the Victorian Court of Appeal that sentences for Peter Gant and Mohamed Siddique should be set aside.
"There is here a significant possibility that innocent men have been convicted, and each of them should accordingly be acquitted."
Justices Mark Weinberg, Phillip Priest and Stephen McLeish agreed to quash the convictions, saying it was an unprecedented case in which the jury had simply got it wrong.
Related Content
Mr Gant and Mr Siddique were both found guilty in May last year of two counts each of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and one each of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception.
Wendy Whiteley, who testified in the case before the Supreme Court of Victoria last year that she believed three paintings attributed to her late husband were fakes, says she is "in shock" at the ruling.
"I'm stunned and I'm in shock, I can't believe it," Ms Whiteley told Fairfax Media by phone from Cairns, where she is opening an exhibition of Brett Whiteley's work.
"I'm finding it difficult to take on board really."
She said she was unsure whether Thursday's decision or the case overall would affect the value of Whiteley's works or his artistic legacy.
"I wouldn't have a clue about that. I'm just so shocked and stunned. I don't think it's got anything to do with Brett's legacy."
Melbourne writer Gabriella Coslovich, a former Fairfax Media arts journalist who is writing a book about the case, said she was shocked at the development.
"I'm in shock, but perhaps I shouldn't be," Ms Coslovich said.
"This was the biggest case of art fraud ever to appear before the criminal courts in Australia. It has been before the court system for more than two years.
"Prosecuting art fraud is notoriously difficult, especially in this country where we don't even have an art fraud squad. This case exemplifies the difficulties.
"To a lay person, it appeared to be a strong prosecution, but in the end this case shows the difficulties of presenting expert evidence which is based on opinion, or connoisseurship, to the criminal courts, which are used to the gold standards of scientific evidence backed up by a statistical database.
"The Crown's evidence convinced the jury, which was strongly directed by the trial judge to acquit. The jury refused. And now the jury's conviction has been overturned.
"The Crown's evidence has clearly not stood up to legal scrutiny – and the Crown conceded as much. Ultimately it was the words of two witnesses which lost the Crown its case at appeal – evidence which ... was not challenged by the prosecution.
"Everything about this case has been eye-opening. It raises questions about how well equipped our police and courts are of dealing with art fraud. The police need to improve their techniques and their resources in prosecuting such cases."
with Liam Mannix