Bakes v Alexander

Case •

[2022] ACTMC 10

•

19 May 2022

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:  Bakes v Alexander

Citation: 

[2022] ACTMC 10

Hearing Dates: 

7 – 11 February 2022

Last Submissions: 

11 May 2022

Decision Date: 

19 May 2022

Before:

Magistrate Theakston

Decision:

See [69]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – No case to answer submission – Obtain property by deception – whether bank deceived where defendant acts beyond his authority as officer of club

CRIMINAL LAW – No case to answer submission – Theft – whether leave should be granted to amend particular from ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’

CRIMINAL LAW – No case to answer submission – Theft – whether failure to prove club was a legal entity is determinative

CRIMINAL LAW – No case to answer submission – Theft – whether evidence could support offence

Legislation Cited: 

Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (ACT)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 308, s 325, s 326, s 368, s 372, s 377

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT)

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 28

Cases Cited: 

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) (1983) 2 VR 10

CB v DPP [2013] NSWSC 618

DPP (Cth) v Bradley [2009] ACTCA 5

Martiniello v R [2006] ACTCA 28

R v Beowulf (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 82

R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 322

R v Capewell [1995] 2 Qd R 64

R v Hawcroft [2009] ACTSC 145

R v Potts (No 4) [2016] ACTSC

R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74

Parties: 

Nathan Bakes (Informant)

Aaron Alexander (Defendant)

Representation: 

Counsel

M Dyason (Informant)

E Chen (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

CC1847 – 1954 of 2020

CC 4887 of 2021

CC 4895 – 5001 of 2021

MAGISTRATE THEAKSTON:

Introduction

  1. The defendant is charged with 108 counts of obtaining property by deception and 108 charges of theft, all relating to funds said to have been taken by him while he was the president of a local sporting club.  The latter charges are in the alternative to the former.  Following the close of the prosecution case, the defendant applied to have all charges dismissed on the basis that there was no case to answer.  Ultimately, I will dismiss a number of the charges.  These are my reasons.

  2. The defendant has submitted there is no case to answer on the following bases:

Primary argument

(a)for the primary charges, the evidence could not support findings of deception;

(b)for the alternative charges, the evidence could not support findings that there was the appropriation of tangible money – as pleaded, as opposed to an enforceable right to withdraw funds;

(c)for all charges, the evidence could not support findings that the property belonged to an entity known as ‘Gungahlin United Football Club’;

Secondary argument

(d)for charges relating to the transfer of funds from the club’s general account to its account associated with the defendant’s club debit card, there was no actual appropriation;

(e)for charges relating to withdrawing funds from the club’s account associated with the defendant’s club debit card, the evidence could not support a finding that the defendant conducted the transactions, intended to conduct the transactions, or that the transactions were not for the benefit of the club and were therefore dishonest;

(f)for numerous charges involving cash withdrawn from the club’s general account and funds transferred from that account to the defendant’s private and business accounts, it remained open on the evidence that the payments related to the normal running costs of the club and were therefore dishonest.

(g)for charges CC2020/1947 and CC2021/4994, there is no evidence who received the funds and it remains open on the evidence that the payment related to the normal running costs of the club, and were therefore not dishonest;

(h)for charges CC2020/1864 and CC2021/4911, there is no evidence of a transaction on 1 June 2018;

  1. I will initially describe the elements of the two types of offences and then the test applicable for a no case to answer submission.  I will then summarise the aspects of the prosecution case undeniably open on the evidence, before turning to address in turn each of the above contentions.

  2. The prosecution also conceded there was no case to answer for a number of charges.  I will not discuss those charges further, and they are dismissed as listed in the attached schedule.

  3. Ultimately, I am persuaded that the evidence could not support a finding of deception and, therefore, there is no case to answer for the principal charges.  In relation to the alternative charges of theft, while I find there is no evidence that actual money was stolen, there is evidence that an intangible right was appropriated.  As this is what the prosecution opened on and I am satisfied there would be no injustice to the defendant, I will amend those charges to particularise the property accordingly.

Elements of the offences

  1. The charges of obtaining property by deception are contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). That provision reads:

    326    Obtaining property by deception

    A person commits an offence (obtaining property by deception) if the person, by deception, dishonestly obtains property belonging to someone else with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property.

    Maximum penalty:  1 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.

  2. The elements of that offence are therefore:

    (a)the defendant obtained something;

    and did so intentionally (default);

    (b)the thing was property;

    and the defendant was at least reckless about that (default);

    (c)the thing belonged to someone else;

    and the defendant was at least reckless about that (default);

    (d)the thing was obtained by deception;

    and the defendant was at least reckless about that (defined);

    (e)the obtaining was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people;

    and the defendant knew that it was dishonest in that way (defined); and

    (f)the defendant intended to permanently deprive the other person of the property.

  3. Section 372(2) of the Criminal Code 2002, provides a statutory alternative to a charge of obtaining property by deception, namely the offence of theft contrary to s 308 of the Code. That provision reads:

    If, in a prosecution for an offence of obtaining property by deception, the trier of fact is not satisfied that the defendant committed the offence but is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an offence of theft, the trier of fact may find the defendant guilty of theft, but only if the defendant has been given procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.

  4. Notwithstanding that provision, the prosecution expressly preferred 108 separate charges of theft echoing each of the principal charges.  In any event, and perhaps with a degree of redundancy, the defendant was squarely put on notice that the prosecution alleged, in the alternative, corresponding allegations of theft.

  5. The theft offence provision at s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 reads:

    308    Theft

    A person commits an offence (theft) if the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to someone else with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property.

    Maximum penalty:  1 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.

  6. The elements of theft are therefore:

    (a)The defendant appropriated something;

    and did so intentionally (default);

    (b)That appropriated was property;

    and the defendant was at least reckless about that (default);

    (c)The property belonged to someone else;

    and the defendant was at least reckless about that (default);

    (d)the obtaining was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people;

    and the defendant knew that (defined); and

    (e)the defendant intended to permanently deprive the other person of the property.

No case to answer test

  1. Murrell CJ, in R v Beowulf (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 82, summarised the key features of the test applicable to a submission that there is no case to answer:

    [8] On a no case application, the question is whether, taken at its highest, the evidence is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty. As recently as 20 March 2019, the High Court stated that the test on a no case submission is whether there is evidence capable of supporting a verdict of guilty.

    [9] On a no case submission, the question is not whether a conviction would be unsafe or unsatisfactory. There should be no examination of the weight or reliability of the prosecution evidence. The prosecution evidence may be tenuous, inherently weak or vague, but if it is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the matter must be left to the jury.

    [10] In a circumstantial case, application of the test requires the court to assume that the prosecution evidence is reliable and that, based on that evidence, the jury will draw the available factual inferences that are most favourable to the prosecution.

    (Citations omitted)

    [11] When considering a no case application in R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 322 (Bilick), a circumstantial case, King CJ stated at 337:

    The question to be answered by the trial judge is whether there is evidence with respect to every element of the offence charged which, if accepted, could prove that element beyond reasonable doubt. ... Where there is direct evidence of the actus reus and that evidence is capable of supporting an inference of mens rea, there is a case to answer ... Where the case is a circumstantial or partly circumstantial case and therefore depends on inferences, the question may be expanded so that it becomes: On the assumption that all the evidence of primary fact considered at its strongest from the point of view of the case for the prosecution, is accurate, and on the further assumption that all inferences most favourable to the prosecution which are reasonably open, are drawn, is the evidence capable of producing, in the mind of a reasonable person, satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused?

    (Emphasis added)

    [12] This passage should not be read as supporting the proposition that, on a no case submission, the judge may subsume the role of the jury, deciding whether, taken as a whole, the available inferences are capable of proving each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 

    [13] In R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74, Gleeson CJ approved the following statement of principle taken from Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) (1983) 2 VR 10 at 415:

    The question whether the Crown has ultimately excluded every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is a question of fact for the jury and therefore, if the Crown has led evidence upon which the accused could be convicted, a trial judge should not rule that there is no case to answer or direct the jury to acquit simply because he thinks that there could be formulated a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused which the Crown has failed to exclude. ... It is always a question for the jury whether a reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of the accused ...

    (Emphasis in original)

    …

    [15] In DPP (Cth) v Bradley [2009] ACTCA 5; 3 ACTLR 159, a reference appeal from a directed acquittal in a circumstantial evidence case, the Court of Appeal approved observations that had been made by King CJ in Bilick, stating at [59]:

    Question: Is a trial judge entitled to record a verdict of acquittal pursuant to s 287 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) in respect of a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence on the basis that the prosecution could not negative all other reasonable inferences which were inconsistent with the guilt of the accused?

    Answer: No.

Facts undeniably open on the evidence

  1. The following aspects of the prosecution case are supported by evidence which, if accepted, could establish those facts beyond reasonable doubt.  I do not understand the defendant to say that the prosecution case, taken at its highest, could not support these facts.

  2. There is an organisation referred to informally as the Gungahlin United Football Club.  The club may be a body corporate established under the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (ACT). The club’s purpose is to support and field various children’s and premier league football teams in the local Canberra football competition. The club had an elected executive committee. From approximately September 2016 to late July 2018, the defendant was the president of that club. While there was a treasurer for the club before September 2017 and after February 2018, the defendant, at times, unilaterally operated the club’s bank accounts. The club’s bank accounts included separate accounts associated with debit cards issued to a limited number of members of the club. The defendant, in his role as president, was issued with such a card.

  3. The president’s role, particularly in the absence of a treasurer, extended to paying the expenses of the club.  The club had significant expenses across the year.  The constitution of the club limited expenditure to normal running costs or other expenditure authorised by the executive committee.  It prohibited payments to members of the executive committee, other than for the purpose of reimbursing expenses reasonably made on behalf of the club.

  4. Various funds were transferred from the club’s accounts, including at times by the defendant, namely:

    (a)to Macquarie Bank as part of leasing arrangements for the defendant’s private motor vehicle;

    (b)to the club account associated with the defendant’s club debit card;

    (c)to the defendant’s personal bank account;

    (d)to a bank account associated with the defendant’s company, Clearly VC Pty Ltd;

    (e)to unknown third-party accounts; and

    (f)withdrawn as cash.

  5. Additionally, funds were paid by debit card, from accounts associated with such cards, including by the defendant using the card issued to him.

Is there evidence that could support findings of deception?

  1. The term deception is defined at s 325 of the Criminal Code 2002 to mean:

    deception means an intentional or reckless deception, whether by words or other conduct, and whether as to fact or law, and includes—

    (a)a deception about the intention of the person using the deception or anyone else; and

    (b)    conduct by a person that causes a computer, a machine or an electronic device to make a response that the person is not authorised to cause it to do.

  2. The definition involves features associated with misleading another and is extended to include doing so notionally when the human element is replaced by technology, and the defendant is not authorised to cause the technology’s response.  The nature of the authorisation provided within that extended definition must be informed by the circumstances in which the technology has replaced the human element.  To do otherwise would be to allow this extended definition of deception to distort the elements of the offence by replacing deception with the mere involvement of technology.

  3. The prosecution particularised the deception for the principal charges as being:

    The deception … is causing a machine to make a transaction that Mr Alexander wasn’t authorised to do. So, the transaction was inconsistent with the authorisation given by the club to use the funds, and as such when Mr Alexander used it, inconsistently with that authorisation, he was making – he was causing a machine to make a transaction that he was not authorised to cause it to do.

  4. Clearly, the prosecution was relying upon that extended definition.  In response, the defendant contended there was no deception because the relevant ‘authorisation’ in this case was that of the bank and not of the club.  The defendant argued that there was no evidence the bank had any interest in why the defendant was transferring funds from the account and was probably only concerned with who was initiating those transactions.  There is no suggestion that the bank looked at the purpose or intention behind any transaction initiated by someone authorised by the club to operation their account.  The facts in this case were distinct from those in other cases, for example R v Potts (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 370, where a stolen credit card was used by the accused.

  5. In the absence of the extended definition, it is clear there was no relevant deception of anyone when the defendant used the debit card or transferred money from the club’s account.  The bank was not misled, nor was the club.  That was the case notwithstanding the defendant exceeding any limits on the use of the club’s funds imposed by the club’s executive committee.  There may have been dishonesty, but that is a different element.  The bank may have been surprised and the club alarmed to subsequently learn of the transactions, but the obtaining of the funds, on each occasion, could not be said to be a consequence of the defendant deceiving anyone.  Further, had the defendant approached a bank teller and requested a withdrawal from the club’s accounts, there would again have been no deception.  That is because the teller would not be concerned with why the defendant was withdrawing the funds.  Presumably, the teller would have been only concerned about whether he was authorised, in a general sense, to operate the accounts on behalf of the club.  The defendant clearly was.

  6. When applying the extended definition, the authority of concern must be the bank’s with respect to the operation of the accounts in a general sense.  That is because the technology offered by the bank was used to essentially replace officers of the bank.  It was not a substitution for the operations or governance of the club.  If that is the case, then the defendant could not be said to have caused the technology to make a response that he was not authorised to cause it to do.

  7. Accordingly, the evidence could not support findings of deception, and I rule there is no case to answer with respect to the principal offences of obtaining property by deception. I will dismiss those charges, as listed in the attached schedule.

Is there evidence that could support findings that property was appropriated?

  1. The defendant takes issue with the way the alternative charges of theft were particularised and contends that the evidence could not support those allegations.  This argument relies upon the uncontroversial distinction between physical property on the one hand and intangible property on the other, taking the form of an enforceable legal right.

  2. I will further describe that distinction, note the discrepancy in this case between the particulars charged and the evidence presented, explain why a common law principle and a legislative provision do not assist and why it is appropriate to amend the charges to reflect the prosecution case.

The distinction

  1. In the current context, the ACT Supreme Court has interpreted the term ‘money’ to mean actual money in the form of physical cash: R v Hawcroft [2009] ACTSC 145. This is consistent with various dictionary definitions. While that precedent persists, the Magistrates Court is bound by that approach, and this remains the case, notwithstanding common parlance regularly, and perhaps increasingly, using the term ‘money’ to mean a broad range of things that extend to intangible cash equivalents. For example, as we move away from using cash, the use of the term ‘money’ is increasingly being used to describe things0 such as the interest we have in financial accounts and financial values transferred electronically. Similarly, the language used in ACT legislation often uses the term very broadly. For example, s 377 of the Criminal Code 2002 requires that the public trustee and guardian must transfer certain money to the confiscated assets trust fund.  Clearly, that could not apply only to money in the form of cash.  Similarly, the note following the definition of ‘property’ in the Dictionary of the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) uses the expression ‘money held in a bank’.

  1. In contrast to the physical quality of ‘money’, the interest customers hold in bank accounts are intangible or incorporeal and are known as ‘choses in action’, and more recently ‘things in action’: see again the note following the above definition of ‘property’.  Obviously, in such circumstances the customer does not own any actual physical cash and no such cash is held by the bank on their behalf.  Rather the customer owns the right to demand from the bank cash, or its equivalent, of the same value as recorded in the account.  This distinction was described by McPherson JA in R v Capewell [1995] 2 Qd R 64 at 71 when he observed:

    It is now well settled that the relation between banker and customer in operating a current account is that of debtor and creditor.  Money banked to the credit of the account is not held by the banker as agent or trustee for the customer but becomes the property of the bank … The debt owed by the bank to the customer is a chose in action which is property within the meaning of [a Queensland provision] and as such capable of being stolen …

  2. That distinction was noted locally in Martiniello v R [2006] ACTCA 28 at [5], where a chose in action was also described as an incorporeal right to receive an equivalent sum, enforceable by legal action.

The discrepancy

  1. The alternative theft charges each particularise the property as ‘money’.  But there is no evidence that for any of the alleged transactions that actual money, in the form of physical cash and belonging to the club, was appropriated by the defendant.  Rather, the evidence suggests that funds in the club’s accounts were transferred to accounts belonging to others or withdrawn as cash by the defendant.  (I note at this point that it is not the prosecution case that appropriation occurred after the funds had been converted into cash.)  The evidence is instead consistent with the defendant having appropriated choses in action.  The defendant therefore says that there is no case to answer to the charges as particularised and they should be dismissed.

  2. That defendant’s contention echoes the successful argument made by the accused in R v Hawcroft [2009] ACTSC 145. In that matter, the accused was charged with 230 counts of theft of sums of money arising from her alleged use, for her own purposes, of trust funds in a bank account that she held in her capacity as trustee. The accused argued there was no case to answer. Marshall J held that, if the accused stole anything from the beneficiaries, it was a chose in action and not actual money and directed the accused be acquitted on all charges.

A common law principle and a legislative provision

  1. While not discussed in Hawcroft, I note there is a difference between what needs to be proved - elements of an offence, and that of particulars.  This issue arose in CB v DPP [2013] NSWSC 618. The accused was charged with recklessly damaging property by fire. The court found that while the offence was established by proving the accused was reckless about property being damaged, the charge had been particularised with greater precision when it alleged that the accused was reckless about a house being destroyed.  The evidence established the former, but not the latter.  Adamson J noted at [42] that there is a difference between elements and particulars, where ‘[t]he charge is the offence, the elements of which must be proved by the prosecution. The particulars contain the description of the conduct said to constitute the commission of the offence charged.’  Her Honour went on to quote and adopt a general principle articulated by Gleeson CJ (Handley JA and Studdert J agreeing) in R v VHP (Unreported, NSWCCA, 7 Jul 1997):

    As a general rule, what the Crown needs to establish in order to obtain a conviction are the essential facts alleged in the indictment, and if the Crown fails to establish an inessential fact, or a particular which has been provided before the trial, or which emerged from the evidence of Crown witnesses, that is not fatal. However, that generalisation may, in any given case, need to be qualified. Two examples of possible qualifications are of present relevance. First, in some circumstances the requirements of procedural or substantive fairness may restrict the capacity of the Crown to depart from particulars. Second, the evidence in a case may be such that it would not be open to a jury, acting reasonably, to treat one part of the Crown case as reliable, and another part as unreliable.

  2. In CB, Adamson J also made the following observations at [44] and [45]:

    [44] The principal function of particulars is to inform the person charged of the case he or she has to meet. Particulars are a means of providing natural justice. In certain circumstances a trial may be regarded as unfair if the particulars supplied to an accused have been so inadequate and misleading that an accused has been denied a proper opportunity of preparing his or her defence.

    [45] That there may be a difference between the particulars on the one hand and the facts by which the charge ultimately proved on the other is a product of their different functions. This difference is also demonstrated by the requirement that the facts be determined for the purposes of sentencing after a verdict is returned.

    (Citations deleted)

  3. It appears that this principle may have been considered in Hawcroft, when Marshall J expeditiously observed ‘[c]harges must be framed with precision to identify correctly and allege properly the property to be stolen …’

  4. The prosecution responded to the defendant’s submissions by contending that there is a distinction between the offences the subject of Hawcroft and in the current case.  That distinction was how the term ‘property’ was defined for the purposes of the respective offences.  In Hawcroft, the definition was provided by the now repealed s 93 of the Crimes Act 1900 and in the instant case the definition is found in the Dictionary of the Legislation Act 2001.  However, both definitions of ‘property’ are rather similar and, in any event, encompass both physical cash and choses in action.  Further, the defendant’s argument was not that no property was appropriated, but rather it was not the form of property particularised in the charge, namely ‘money’.

  5. I also note that s 368 of the Criminal Code relaxed certain procedural requirements in relation to indictments for charges under Chapter 3. Incidentally, the Dictionary in the Legislation Act 2001, continues to define the term ‘indictment’ to include the term ‘information’, and therefore s 368 applies equally to charges before the Magistrates Court as it does to indictments before the Supreme Court. Section 368(2) provides relevantly:

    In an indictment for an offence against [Chapter 3, Theft, fraud, bribery and related offences] in relation to money … it is sufficient to describe it as a certain amount of money … without specifying a particular kind of money … and the description will be sustained by proof of the offence in relation to any money …

    (Emphasis added)

  6. This provision replaced a similar version at s 156 of the Crimes Act (originally s 151) and is very similar to equivalent provisions in NSW.

  7. While s 368 recognises different kinds of money, I understand those differences relate to the precise manifestation of cash, that is the individual notes or coins, rather than to extend to incorporeal variants. Accordingly, this provision does not relax the requirement to particularise whether the property is corporeal or incorporeal.

Amendment of the particulars

  1. The prosecution sought leave, if necessary, to amend the theft charges to particularise the property as choses in action.  The defendant objects to this course on the basis that to do so would not enable a real question in dispute to be decided and would cause injustice to the defendant.

  2. The power to amend the charges is provided by s 28 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930, which provides:

    28 Power of court to amend information

    (1)     If at the hearing of any information or summons any objection is taken to an alleged defect in it in substance or form or if objection is taken to any variance between the information or summons and the evidence adduced at the hearing of it, the court may make any amendment in the information or summons that appears to it to be desirable or to be necessary to enable the real question in dispute to be decided.

    (2)     The court must not make an amendment under subsection (1) if it considers that the amendment cannot be made without injustice to the defendant.

  3. Here clearly an objection has been taken between the information and the evidence adduced at the hearing, by way of the defendant’s no case to answer submission.  Accordingly, the Court may amend the charges, if it is desirable or necessary, to enable the real question in dispute to be decided, and if it can be made without injustice to the defendant.

  4. While the particulars in the theft charges do not align with the evidence, the prosecution opened and maintained its case consistent with the way the evidence has been adduced at the hearing.  It has always been clear that the prosecution alleged the defendant appropriated property of the club by transferred funds from the club’s accounts.  The distinction about the precise legal nature of that property was discussed in court prior to the prosecution opening.  The defendant now claims the real issue in dispute with respect to the theft charges is whether the appropriation of electronic funds can constitute the appropriation of ‘money’.  I do not accept that submission.  While that distinction was in issue, it was one of many and is almost semantic in nature.  That issue did not relate to a critical factual issue, as for example in Martiniello.  That case involved an accused who was said to have stolen choses in action from a credit union by using a credit card issued by that institution, while not having funds in a separate bank account with another institution, to cover the credit card purchases.  To complicate matters further, the arrangement between the two institutions appears to have involved Australia Post using its pay system to, upon use of the credit card, transferred money to the credit union, before receiving a transfer from the bank.  The Court of Appeal held that in these circumstances the credit union never had any chose in action and the accused had been convicted of stealing things, which had never existed and ordered verdicts of acquittal be entered. 

  5. The case turned on the specific transactional arrangements between the three financial institutions.  Ultimately, the court found that an essential element of the offences had not been established.  The decision was not about whether the property was adequately or fairly particularised in the indictment.  The Court also noted that, as it was an appeal, it was not concerned about what charges may have been established by the evidence, but rather whether the charges tried had been established.  The current matter is obviously not an appeal with such restrictions.

  6. In the current case, the real issues are whether the elements of the theft charges are established.  That includes whether or not the defendant appropriated property.  Amending the charges to correctly particularise that type of property as ‘a chose in action’ would enable a real question in dispute to be decided.

  7. The defendant also argued that amending the charges would cause an unreasonable delay, and therefore injustice to the defendant.  I do not accept that submission.  It is true that not amending the charges may bring the proceedings to a conclusion.  However, that does not mean that allowing the proceedings to continue would create an unreasonable delay.  There was an earlier delay due in part to a position taken by the Magistrate when the hearing was first listed, and the scale of that delay was due to the listing pressures of the Court.  I also acknowledge that, there may be additional evidence led as a consequence of the amendment.  In any event, I am not persuaded that those consequences would be unreasonable, or that any inconvenience consequently experienced by the defendant would amount to unfair prejudice.

  8. The defendant also argued that his counsel made tactical forensic decisions reliant on the distinction between the pleaded particulars for property and the evidence expected to be adduced.  While I accept that may have been the case to some degree, and that it is difficult for the defendant to be precise about this without waiving client solicitor privilege, the cross examination on his behalf was comprehensive, systematic and conducted with concinnity.  It methodically attacked numerous elements of the offences, well beyond the particulars of the property said to have been appropriated.

  9. For the above reasons, I am satisfied the amendments can be made without causing injustice to the defendant and I will amend each of the theft charges by replacing the term ‘money’ with the expression ‘chose in action’.

  10. I also conclude there is evidence that could support findings that property was appropriated.

Is there evidence that could support findings that the appropriated property belonging to someone else, namely the Gungahlin United Football Club?

  1. The defendant contended that, as there was no direct evidence that the Gungahlin United Football Club was a body corporate, then there was no evidence that could support findings that the appropriated property belonged to someone else.

  2. However, the evidence included a reference in the club’s constitution that the club was incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (ACT), and various office holders of the club spoke about the club as if it were a separate legal entity of some form. The committee also operated bank accounts in the club’s name and engaged in financial and contractual relations as if the club was a body corporate. There was no suggestion that there was more than one club in question or that the club in some way involved more than one legal entity, which may have created uncertainty about which entity owned the property.

  3. Taking such evidence at its highest, including adopting inferences most favourable to the prosecution, there is evidence that could support findings that the appropriated property belonged to someone else, namely a legal entity in some form, known as the Gungahlin United Football Club.

  4. I therefore conclude there is evidence that could support findings of that the appropriated property belonged to someone else, namely the Gungahlin Football Club.

Funds transferred from the club’s general account to its account associated with the defendant’s debit card.

  1. The club had a general account, as well as a number of separate accounts associated with debit cards, held by a limited number of club members.  The defendant was one such member.  A number of charges relate to transactions from the general account to the club’s account associated with the defendant’s debit card.  The defendant contends that following any such transaction, the club would retain a chose in action in the same amount against the same bank as before the transaction.  I accept that submission.  Consequently, there was no appropriation and, accordingly, there is no case to answer for the associated charges.

  2. Additionally, the prosecution has conceded that there is no case to answer for a large number of these transactions.  I will dismiss all charges of this nature, as listed in the attached schedule.

Funds withdrawn from the club’s account associated with the defendant’s debit card

  1. Noting the circumstantial nature of this case, there is evidence available to support findings that the defendant used the club debit card issued to him, did so intentionally and did so for purposes beyond the benefit of the club. 

  2. That evidence includes, the card being issued in the name of the defendant, the defendant’s limited admissions in his records of interview about using club funds, internal club emails corresponding with the defendant about his use of his debit card, bank account records describing payments using that card and the nature of the vendors.  That evidence supports the inferences that the defendant possessed his club debit card and intentionally used the same.  The vendors were Just Jeans, Hoyts, a pet store, a darts store, ACT Road User Service and Telstra.  With the exception of Telstra, those stores offered goods and services incongruous with the functions of the club, and accordingly strong inferences remain available that purchases from such stores were not for the purposes of a football club. 

  3. Telstra was said to have provided internet and, possibly, mobile phone services, to the club.  However, the evidence was that the monthly spend for those services was around $100 per month.  The three transactions in question occurred in mid March, May and June 2018, and were for amounts between $350 and $580.  They also occurred while $100 was direct-debited to Telstra each month from the clubs general account.

  4. I therefore conclude there is evidence that could support findings that the defendant intentionally used the club debit card and he did so for transactions that were not for the benefit of the club, and such use was therefore dishonest.

Cash withdrawn from the club’s general account and funds transferred from that account to the defendant’s private and business accounts

  1. The defendant contends with respect to transactions said to have been made to his personal and business accounts, there is no evidence about the purpose of those transactions, and there is some evidence pointing to possible purposes related to the normal running costs of the club.

  2. This part of the prosecution case is clearly circumstantial in nature.  It relies on a range of features, some significant and other not.  For example, the transactions:

    (a)at times involved significant amounts, the scale of which surprised other officers of the executive committee;

    (b)at other times involved amounts that were within the limit of the club debit card;

    (c)involved amounts within the transaction limit for online banking and provided no obvious utility, compared to paying venders directly;

    (d)were of simple amounts, rather than precise amounts representative of actual reimbursements;

    (e)were frequent in nature, the scale of which was inconsistent with making the odd reimbursement;

    (f)involved ambiguous descriptions that provided no helpful explanation about the purpose for the transactions; and

    (g)occurred in circumstances where the defendant operated the accounts without transparency to the balance of the executive committee.

  3. Assuming the prosecution evidence is accurate and reliable, an inference is available that the defendant acted dishonestly in relation to each of these transactions.  I note that it is not for me, at this stage of the proceedings, to dismiss a charge because the prosecution could not negative all other inferences which were inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant.

  4. I therefore conclude that there is evidence that could support findings of that the defendant was recklessly dishonest in relation to each of these transactions.

  5. In relation to the four cash withdrawals, I come to similar conclusions for similar reasons.  In particular there was no obvious utility in withdrawing these amounts in cash, the account was used without transparency of the executive committee, and the practice of withdrawing cash prevents the recipient being recorded.

Charges CC2020/1947 and CC2021/4994

  1. With respect to charges CC2020/1947 and CC2021/4994, there is no evidence about who the recipient was or where the money went, other than the entry of ‘Website/branding’.  In those circumstances there is insufficient evidence to establish that the transaction was not related to the normal running costs of the club and the defendant had therefore been dishonest.  Accordingly, there is no case to answer and those charges will be dismissed, as listed in the attached schedule.

Charges CC2020/1864 and CC2021/4911

  1. With respect charges CC2020/1864 and CC2021/4911, the charges are particularised as having occurred on 1 June 2018, but the bank statements do not record the relevant transaction on that day.  The defendant submits the charges should therefore be dismissed.  However, the bank statements do evidence the relevant transaction having occurred some five or so months earlier on 23 January 2018.  The latter charge will be amended to reflect that date and I note there is correspondence on the court file indicating that the defendant does not take issue with that amendment.  The former charge is to be dismissed, see [24], and would have otherwise been similarly amended.

Other Missing records

  1. With respect to charges CC2020/1862 and CC2021/4909, there is no record in the bank statements of the relevant transaction and no other evidence of the alleged transaction having occurred.  Accordingly, there is no evidence of appropriation and there can be no case to answer.  Those charges will be dismissed, as described in the attached schedule.

  2. The charges CC2020/1949 and CC2021/4996, relate to a common transaction, with the bank records having the transaction occurring on 1 February 2018. The former charge is erroneously particularised as 2 February 2018, and would have been amended but for being dismissed, see [24].

  3. Similarly, the charges CC2020/1879 and CC2021/4926 relate to a common transaction, with the bank records having the transaction occurring on 27 December 2017. The former charge is erroneously particularised as 14 December 2017 and would have been amended but for being dismissed, see [24].

Orders

  1. The court makes orders as described in the final column with respect to the charges described in the second column in the attached schedule.

I certify that the preceding sixty-nine [69] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Magistrate Theakston

Associate: Linda Cao

Date: 19 May 2022

Schedule

Serial Charge number Date Charge type Amount Method Description Recipient account

Orders & judgment paragraph
1 2020/1847 11/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
1 2021/4887 11/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
2 2020/1848 15/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
2 2021/4895 15/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
3 2020/1849 15/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
3 2021/4896 15/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose to action’
[47]
4 2020/1850 15/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
4 2021/4897 15/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
5 2020/1851 15/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
5 2021/4898 15/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
6 2020/1852 16/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
6 2021/4899 16/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
7 2020/1853 15/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
7 2021/4900 15/05/2018 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
8 2020/1854 15/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
8 2021/4901 15/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
9 2020/1855 16/07/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Dismissed
[24]
9 2021/4902 16/07/2018 Minor Theft  $    914.85 Internet BPAY Macquarie Leasing Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
10 2020/1856 22/08/2017 Obtain property by deception  $      39.00 Debit card transaction The Hoyts Corporatio Sydney Dismissed [4]
10 2021/4903 22/08/2017 Minor Theft  $      39.00 Debit card transaction The Hoyts Corporatio Belconnen Dismissed [4]
11 2020/1857 22/09/2017 Obtain property by deception  $      17.90 Debit card transaction The Hoyts Corporatio Belconnen Dismissed [4]
11 2021/4904 22/09/2017 Minor Theft  $      17.90 Debit card transaction The Hoyts Corporatio Belconnen Dismissed [4]
12 2020/1858 04/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $      41.97 Debit card transaction Just Jeans Belconnen Dismissed
[24]
12 2021/4905 04/01/2018 Minor Theft  $      41.97 Debit card transaction Just Jeans Belconnen Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
13 2020/1859 09/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    398.14 Debit card transaction Telstra Bill Paymnt Melbourne Dismissed
[24]
13 2021/4906 09/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    398.14 Debit card transaction Telstra Bill Paymnt Melbourne Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
14 2020/1860 12/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    170.10 Debit card transaction Bstfrnds Gungahlin Gungahlin Dismissed
[24]
14 2021/4907 12/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    170.10 Debit card transaction Bstfrnds Gungahlin Gungahlin Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
15 2020/1861 28/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    324.43 Debit card transaction Deadeye Darts Ourimbah Dismissed
[24]
15 2021/4908 28/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    324.43 Debit card transaction Deadeye Darts Ourimbah Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
16 2020/1862 16/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    302.60 Debit card transaction ACT Road User Service DICKSON Dismissed
[24] & [66]
16 2021/4909 16/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    302.60 Debit card transaction ACT Road User Service DICKSON Dismissed
[66]
17 2020/1863 10/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    571.95 Debit card transaction Telstra Bill Paymnt Melbourne Dismissed
[24]
17 2021/4910 10/05/2018 Minor Theft  $    571.95 Debit card transaction Telstra Bill Paymnt Melbourne Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
18 2020/1864 01/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $      39.00 Debit card transaction HOYTS Sydney Dismissed
[24]
18 2021/4911 01/06/2018 Minor Theft  $      39.00 Debit card transaction HOYTS Sydney Amended to 23 January 2018
[65]
19 2020/1865 04/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    303.00 Debit card transaction ACT Road User Service DICKSON Dismissed
[24]
19 2021/4912 04/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    303.00 Debit card transaction ACT Road User Service DICKSON Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
20 2020/1866 04/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    313.00 Debit card transaction ACT Road User Service DICKSON Dismissed
[24]
20 2021/4913 04/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    313.00 Debit card transaction ACT Road User Service DICKSON Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
21 2020/1867 04/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    148.00 Debit card transaction ACT Road User Service DICKSON Dismissed
[24]
21 2021/4914 04/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    148.00 Debit card transaction ACT Road User Service DICKSON Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
22 2020/1868 15/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    354.05 Debit card transaction Telstra Bill Paymnt Melbourne Dismissed
[24]
22 2021/4915 15/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    354.05 Debit card transaction Telstra Bill Paymnt Melbourne Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
23 2020/1869 05/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    100.00 Transfer Test 013 Dismissed [4]
23 2021/4916 05/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    100.00 Transfer Test 013 Dismissed [4]
24 2020/1870 05/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    100.00 Transfer Test 2 166 Dismissed
[24]
24 2021/4917 05/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    100.00 Transfer Test 2 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
25 2020/1871 05/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    100.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
25 2021/4918 05/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    100.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
26 2020/1872 05/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Debit card 2013 013 Dismissed [4]
26 2021/4919 05/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Debit card 2013 013 Dismissed [4]
27 2020/1873 11/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
27 2021/4920 11/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
28 2020/1874 11/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    100.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
28 2021/4921 11/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    100.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
29 2020/1875 12/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    450.00 Transfer Towing 166 Dismissed
[24]
29 2021/4922 12/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    450.00 Transfer Towing 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
30 2020/1876 13/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    134.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
30 2021/4923 13/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    134.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
31 2020/1877 14/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    150.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
31 2021/4924 14/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    150.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
32 2020/1878 14/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    200.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
32 2021/4925 14/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    200.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
33 2020/1879 14/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
33 2021/4926 27/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
34 2020/1880 27/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
34 2021/4927 27/12/2017 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
35 2020/1881 02/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    100.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
35 2021/4928 02/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    100.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
36 2020/1882 02/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
36 2021/4929 02/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
37 2020/1883 02/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    600.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
37 2021/4930 02/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    600.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
38 2020/1884 08/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    200.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
38 2021/4931 08/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    200.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
39 2020/1885 08/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Office 365 166 Dismissed
[24]
39 2021/4932 08/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Office 365 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
40 2020/1886 12/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    200.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
40 2021/4933 12/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    200.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
41 2020/1887 15/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    450.00 Transfer Tif samples 166 Dismissed
[24]
41 2021/4934 15/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    450.00 Transfer Tif samples 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
42 2020/1888 16/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
42 2021/4935 16/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
43 2020/1889 24/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    175.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
43 2021/4936 24/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    175.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed
[54]
44 2020/1890 29/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    150.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
44 2021/4937 29/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    150.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed
[54]
45 2020/1891 29/01/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    375.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
45 2021/4938 29/01/2018 Minor Theft  $    375.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
46 2020/1892 05/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    450.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
46 2021/4939 05/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    450.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
47 2020/1893 06/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
47 2021/4940 06/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
48 2020/1894 08/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    150.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
48 2021/4941 08/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    150.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed
[54]
49 2020/1895 09/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    350.00 Transfer bunnings 166 Dismissed
[24]
49 2021/4942 09/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    350.00 Transfer bunnings 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
50 2020/1896 12/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
50 2021/4943 12/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
51 2020/1897 15/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   3,800.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed [4]
51 2021/4944 15/02/2018 Minor Theft  $   3,800.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed [4]
52 2020/1898 19/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    350.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
52 2021/4945 19/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    350.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
53 2020/1899 20/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   1,100.00 Transfer Rego 166 Dismissed
[24]
53 2021/4946 20/02/2018 Minor Theft  $   1,100.00 Transfer Rego 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
54 2020/1900 27/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    175.00 Transfer Parallels 013 Dismissed [4]
54 2021/4947 27/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    175.00 Transfer Parallels 013 Dismissed [4]
55 2020/1901 27/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Marketing stickers 166 Dismissed
[24]
55 2021/4948 27/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Marketing stickers 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
56 2020/1902 28/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Canteen 166 Dismissed
[24]
56 2021/4949 28/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Canteen 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
57 2020/1903 28/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Equipment deposit 166 Dismissed
[24]
57 2021/4950 28/02/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Equipment deposit 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
58 2020/1904 05/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    200.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
58 2021/4951 05/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    200.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
59 2020/1905 07/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Managers deposit 166 Dismissed
[24]
59 2021/4952 07/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Managers deposit 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
60 2020/1906 08/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   1,000.00 Transfer Aldi Miniroos 013 Dismissed [4]
60 2021/4953 08/03/2018 Minor Theft  $   1,000.00 Transfer Aldi Miniroos 013 Dismissed [4]
61 2020/1907 12/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    750.00 Transfer Bunnings 700 Dismissed
[24]
61 2021/4954 12/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    750.00 Transfer Bunnings 700 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
62 2020/1908 12/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    750.00 Transfer Gungahlin LSS 013 Dismissed [4]
62 2021/4955 12/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    750.00 Transfer Gungahlin LSS 013 Dismissed [4]
63 2020/1909 15/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    750.00 Transfer Deposit-CC Amitil 166 Dismissed [4]
63 2021/4956 15/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    750.00 Transfer Deposit-CC Amitil 166 Dismissed [4]
64 2020/1910 21/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Apple TV 013 Dismissed [4]
64 2021/4957 21/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Apple TV 013 Dismissed [4]
65 2020/1911 21/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
65 2021/4958 21/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
66 2020/1912 23/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    750.00 Transfer Packing 013 Dismissed [4]
66 2021/4959 23/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    750.00 Transfer Packing 013 Dismissed [4]
67 2020/1913 26/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    300.00 Transfer Sponsor 166 Dismissed
[24]
67 2021/4960 26/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    300.00 Transfer Sponsor 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
68 2020/1914 27/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Rebel 013 Dismissed [4]
68 2021/4961 27/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Rebel 013 Dismissed [4]
69 2020/1915 28/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    750.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
69 2021/4962 28/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    750.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
70 2020/1916 29/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    400.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
70 2021/4963 29/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    400.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
71 2020/1917 29/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
71 2021/4964 29/03/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
72 2020/1918 03/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    450.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
72 2021/4965 03/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    450.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
73 2020/1919 03/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer bunnings 166 Dismissed
[24]
73 2021/4966 03/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer bunnings 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
74 2020/1920 03/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
74 2021/4967 03/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed [4]
75 2020/1921 09/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
75 2021/4968 09/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
76 2020/1922 10/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Canteen 013 Dismissed [4]
76 2021/4969 10/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Canteen 013 Dismissed [4]
77 2020/1923 11/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
77 2021/4970 11/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
78 2020/1924 14/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    450.00 Transfer Canteen 013 Dismissed [4]
78 2021/4971 13/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    450.00 Transfer Canteen 013 Dismissed [4]
79 2020/1925 13/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    550.00 Transfer Asic 166 Dismissed
[24]
79 2021/4972 13/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    550.00 Transfer Asic 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
80 2020/1926 16/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Costco 166 Dismissed
[24]
80 2021/4973 16/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Costco 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
81 2020/1927 18/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Capital Football 166 Dismissed
[24]
81 2021/4974 18/04/2018 Minor Theft  $       250.00 Transfer Capital Football 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
82 2020/1928 23/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
82 2021/4975 23/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
83 2020/1929 24/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
83 2021/4976 24/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
84 2020/1930 30/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    750.00 Transfer Bunnings 166 Dismissed
[24]
84 2021/4977 30/04/2018 Minor Theft  $    750.00 Transfer Bunnings 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
85 2020/1931 04/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    750.00 Transfer Defender Deposit 166 Dismissed
[24]
85 2021/4978 04/05/2018 Minor Theft  $    750.00 Transfer Defender Deposit 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
86 2020/1932 08/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer bunnings 166 Dismissed
[24]
86 2021/4979 08/05/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer bunnings 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
87 2020/1933 10/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   1,000.00 Transfer Utilities 013 Dismissed [4]
87 2021/4980 10/05/2018 Minor Theft  $   1,000.00 Transfer Utilities 013 Dismissed [4]
88 2020/1934 14/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    450.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
88 2021/4981 14/05/2018 Minor Theft  $    450.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
89 2020/1935 15/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    750.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
89 2021/4982 15/05/2018 Minor Theft  $    750.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
90 2020/1936 18/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   1,000.00 Transfer Bunnings 013 Dismissed [4]
90 2021/4983 18/05/2018 Minor Theft  $   1,000.00 Transfer Bunnings 013 Dismissed [4]
91 2020/1937 24/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Visa debit 2013 700 Dismissed [4]
91 2021/4984 24/05/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Visa debit 2013 700 Dismissed [4]
92 2020/1938 24/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   2,500.00 Transfer Audit Services 013 Dismissed
[54]
92 2021/4985 24/05/2018 Minor Theft  $   2,500.00 Transfer Audit Services 013 Dismissed
[54]
93 2020/1939 28/05/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
93 2021/4986 28/05/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
94 2020/1940 01/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
94 2021/4987 01/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
95 2020/1941 05/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    300.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
95 2021/4988 05/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    300.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
96 2020/1942 08/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    450.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
96 2021/4989 08/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    450.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
97 2020/1943 14/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
97 2021/4990 14/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
98 2020/1944 18/06/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Dismissed
[24]
98 2021/4991 18/06/2018 Minor Theft  $    250.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 166 Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
99 2020/1945 09/07/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed
[54]
99 2021/4992 09/07/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed
[54]
100 2020/1946 12/07/2018 Obtain property by deception  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed
[24] & [54]
100 2021/4993 12/07/2018 Minor Theft  $    500.00 Transfer Linked Acc Trns 013 Dismissed
[54]
101 2020/1947 04/04/2017 Obtain property by deception  $   5,500.00 Transfer Website/branding Unknown Dismissed
[24] & [64]
101 2021/4994 04/04/2017 Minor Theft  $   5,500.00 Transfer Website/branding Unknown Dismissed
[64]
102 2020/1948 15/12/2017 Obtain property by deception  $   5,500.00 Transfer Ag & Earth Unknown Dismissed [4]
102 2021/4995 15/12/2017 Minor Theft  $   5,500.00 Transfer Ag & Earth Unknown Dismissed [4]
103 2020/1949 02/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   3,500.00 Cash withdrawals Dismissed
[24]
103 2021/4996 01/02/2018 Minor Theft  $   3,500.00 Cash withdrawals Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
104 2020/1950 14/02/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   3,500.00 Cash withdrawals Dismissed
[24]
104 2021/4997 14/02/2018 Minor Theft  $   3,500.00 Cash withdrawals Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
105 2020/1951 07/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   4,652.86 Cash withdrawals Dismissed [4]
105 2021/4998 07/03/2018 Minor Theft  $   4,652.86 Cash withdrawals Dismissed [4]
106 2020/1952 23/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   4,600.00 Cash withdrawals Dismissed
[24]
106 2021/4999 23/03/2018 Minor Theft  $   4,600.00 Cash withdrawals Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
107 2020/1953 23/03/2018 Obtain property by deception  $   4,237.74 Cash withdrawals Dismissed
[24]
107 2021/5000 23/03/2018 Minor Theft  $   4,237.74 Cash withdrawals Amended ‘money’ to ‘chose in action’
[47]
108 2020/1954 10/04/2018 Obtain property by deception  $ 16,000.00 Transfer Equipment and Jersey Unknown Dismissed [4]
108 2021/5001 10/04/2018 Minor Theft  $ 16,000.00 Transfer Equipment and Jersey Unknown Dismissed [4]
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Woodburn v NE [2023] ACTCC 2
Cases Citing This Decision

4

Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49
Woodburn v NE [2023] ACTCC 2
Police v Morton [2023] ACTMC 16
Cases Cited

7

Statutory Material Cited

4

R v Beowulf (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 82
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Rodney William Bradley [2009] ACTCA 5
R v Beowulf (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 82