Bangaru v R

The appellant, Bangaru, appealed against both his conviction and sentence. He was convicted of obtaining money by deception and obtaining money by false or misleading statements. The trial judge found him guilty of obtaining over $14,000 by deceiving three individuals, including an elderly man. The court had to determine whether the charges on the indictment were consistent with the offence for which the appellant surrendered for extradition. The court also considered whether the trial judge should have directed an acquittal, whether there was a miscarriage of justice, whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury on a limb of the indictment, and whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, unsafe, or unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court examined whether a tendency direction should have been given under s 97(1) of the Evidence Act.

The appeal against the sentence concerned whether the non-parole period was uncertain, whether the trial judge failed to consider special circumstances, whether there was an allowance for rehabilitation, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court applied the totality principle in its assessment. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that the deception or false or misleading statement must have been made in relation to the obtaining of the money. The court found that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable, unsafe, or unsatisfactory. The court also held that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial judge did not err in not directing an acquittal. The court rejected the argument that the tendency direction should have been given and found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court found that the trial judge did not err in any of the ways argued by the appellant and that the jury's verdicts were sound. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the totality principle was appropriately applied. The appellant's appeals were therefore dismissed, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed.