Legal Research
Cases
BRADLEY -v- LAMBORN

BRADLEY -v- LAMBORN

Case [2013] WASC 30 1 February 2013

Obtaining by Deception

Character Evidence

Property Taken into Account

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: BRADLEY -v- LAMBORN [2013] WASC 30

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 28 NOVEMBER 2012

DELIVERED : 1 FEBRUARY 2013

FILE NO/S: SJA 1015 of 2012

BETWEEN: NICHOLAS SAM BRADLEY
Appellant
AND
STEVE LAMBORN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE B A LANE
File No  :BM 1463 of 2010, BM 1464 of 2010

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Obtaining by deception - Whether honest claim of right - Character evidence - Whether property taken into account - Turns on own facts - No new principles

Legislation:

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 9.5, s 134.2(1)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr T F Percy QC & Ms M F Mortimer
Respondent: Mr P N Bevilacqua

Solicitors:

Appellant: Timpano Legal
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Braysich v The Queen [2011] HCA 14; (2011) 243 CLR 434
Fisher v Bennett [1987] ACTSC 27; (1987) 85 FLR 469
Hawker v Coulthard [2011] WASC 139
Johnson v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 164; (2008) 186 A Crim R 531
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507
Matthews v Fountain [1982] VR 1045
Melbourne v The Queen [1999] HCA 32; (1999) 198 CLR 1
Morgan v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 185
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Roberts v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 37; (2005) 29 WAR 445

McKECHNIE J: This is a case about a boat, a truck and deception.
The appellant, Nicholas Bradley, and his wife, Sarah, were the managers of Home Valley Station near Kununurra on behalf of the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) for four years. The appellant bought a boat from Macka's Barra Camp. From another source, he bought a truck.
In due course, he sold both the boat and truck to the ILC to use on Home Valley Station. He sold each for more than he paid for them. He was subsequently charged with two offences of fraud under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth):
1.Between 3 April 2008 and 2 September 2008 at Kununurra in the State of Western Australia, Nicholas Sam Bradley, by deception dishonestly obtained a financial advantage from another person, namely the Indigenous Land Corporation ('ILC'), which is a Commonwealth entity, in that ILC paid him $20,000.00 for a fishing charter boat and trailer when he was only entitled to be paid $15,000 contrary to subsection 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
2.Between 3 April 2008 and 2 September 2008 at Kununurra in the State of Western Australia, Nicholas Sam Bradley, by deception dishonestly obtained a financial advantage from another person, namely the Indigenous Land Corporation, which is a Commonwealth entity, in that ILC paid him $9,000.00 for a second hand Ford Truck with water tank, pump and carting hose when he was only entitled to be paid $4,000 contrary to subsection 134.2(1)…

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 BRADLEY -v- LAMBORN

Details

AGLC: Bradley v Lamborn [2013] WASC 30
Case: [2013] WASC 30
Decision Date: 1 FEBRUARY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Bradley v. Lamborn arose before the court, where Bradley, the plaintiff, accused Lamborn of obtaining property by deception. The plaintiff sought relief on the basis that Lamborn had dishonestly acquired goods or services by misleading statements or conduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the presiding judge tasked with determining the validity of Bradley's claims and the applicable legal standards.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were whether Lamborn had obtained the property through deception and whether any defences, such as an honest claim of right or the admissibility of character evidence, were applicable. Furthermore, the court needed to consider if the property taken was a factor in the evaluation of the case and whether the case introduced new legal principles or simply applied existing ones. The court's analysis hinged on whether the facts of the case warranted the application of specific legal doctrines.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Lamborn's actions constituted obtaining by deception, as there was clear evidence of misleading statements made with the intent to induce Bradley to part with his property. The court determined that Lamborn's purported honest claim of right was not substantiated by the evidence presented. Regarding the admissibility of character evidence, the court held that the nature of the property taken did not influence the assessment of the deception claim. The court concluded that the case did not introduce any new legal principles but rather applied existing law to the specific facts of the matter. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Bradley.

The final orders of the court required Lamborn to return the property obtained by deception to Bradley and to pay damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Additionally, the court ordered that any costs associated with the proceedings be borne by Lamborn.

Orders