CRIMINAL LAW – Magistrates Court Appeal – Appeal against finding of guilt – Nature of appeal from Magistrates Court to Supreme Court – Whether error established in the amendment of the charges – Whether the magistrate erred in finding the property belonged to a particular entity – Whether tendency and coincidence reasoning used – Whether findings of guilt are reasonable and supported by evidence – Whether magistrate mistook the facts – Error established – Evidence establishes guilt of the appellant – Appeal allowed in part
After a five-day hearing in the Magistrates Court, in a commendably concise judgment, Aaron Alexander was found guilty of 65 charges of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (see Bakes v Alexander (No 2) [2022] ACTMC 19). His Honour found the appellant not guilty on five charges. He has not yet been sentenced. He now appeals to this Court against his conviction.
2․
The appellant was the president of the Gungahlin United Football Club. For some time, the club operated without a treasurer, with the…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Alexander v Bakes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTSC 103
Case
[2023] ACTSC 103
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Aaron Alexander has appealed against his conviction of 65 counts of theft by the Magistrates Court, arguing that there was no evidence to support the convictions. The appeal was heard over five days. The appellant was found guilty of nine lease payments from the club's account to Macquarie Leasing, all charges relating to debit card transactions except for one, all charges relating to electronic funds transfers from the club's account to the appellant's account, and acquitted of all charges relating to cash withdrawals from the club's bank accounts. The appeal was heard on five grounds. The first ground was that the magistrate erred in accepting an amendment to all charges, subject to conviction. The appellant argued that the magistrate should not have allowed the charges to be amended. The court found that the magistrate was correct to allow the charges to be amended, as it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove the precise legal categorisation of the property alleged to have been stolen. The second ground was that the magistrate erred in finding that the property stolen belonged to the entity as particularised in the charges. The court found that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the property belonged to a particular person. The third ground was that the magistrate engaged in tendency and coincidence reasoning. The court found that the magistrate did not engage in tendency or coincidence reasoning. The fourth ground was that the findings of guilt in respect of all charges except CC2021/4887–4902 were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The court found that the evidence established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt on some of the charges on which he was found guilty by the magistrate, but not on some others. The fifth ground was that the magistrate mistook the facts. The court found that the magistrate made a factual error but that the error did not entitle the appellant to be acquitted on all charges on this appeal, as the evidence demonstrated the accused's guilt on some charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed in part, and the convictions on certain charges were quashed. The matter should now be relisted before the magistrate for the appellant to be sentenced.