Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Weiss

DPP v Weiss

Case [2002] VSC 16

Criminal Liability

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1464 of 2001

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

BOHDAN WEISS

---
Ruling No. 3A

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	2 February 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bohdan Weiss
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 16

---

Criminal Law and Procedure - continuation of Ruling 3.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr P. Faris QC	OPP
For the Accused	Mr C. Lovitt QC	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Lovitt also did submit and I think this was a good submission that this is not a case of a person who is ill and cannot come here for medical reasons. The witnesses have chosen not to come and the accused is not to be held responsible for that and so you have not got a case where because of medical requirements, someone cannot come. I have also taken that into account.

---

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Weiss [2002] VSC 16
Case: [2002] VSC 16
Decision Date: 2 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Weiss and another individual, were charged with conspiracy to obtain financial advantage by deception, specifically by defrauding the Commonwealth. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The defendants argued that they had been entrapped by an undercover officer and that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary elements of the offence.

The court needed to determine whether the defendants' conduct amounted to a conspiracy to obtain financial advantage by deception. Additionally, the court had to consider the validity of the entrapment defence and whether the prosecution had proven the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

In its judgment, the court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the conspiracy. The court rejected the entrapment defence, holding that the defendants' actions were not merely a result of the undercover officer's persuasion but were driven by their own intentions. The court also concluded that the prosecution had met the burden of proof by demonstrating that the defendants knowingly engaged in conduct that constituted the offence. The Supreme Court of South Australia therefore upheld the conviction.

The final orders of the court included the confirmation of the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to obtain financial advantage by deception. The court ordered the defendants to be sentenced in accordance with the law.

Orders