Legal Research
Cases
Hughes v R

Hughes v R

Case [2021] NSWCCA 238 8 October 2021

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Hughes v R [2021] NSWCCA 238
Hearing dates: 13 August 2021
Date of orders: 8 October 2021
Decision date: 08 October 2021
Before: Payne JA at [1];
Wilson J at [53];
Fagan J at [54]
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction — where applicant had entered a plea of guilty to one “rolled up” count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) — where applicant sought leave to appeal on the basis that the conviction was wrong in law and the element of deception was not made out — where applicant had by her guilty plea admitted all of the elements of the offence — no miscarriage of justice — leave to appeal refused
CRIME — fraud — dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception — causation — meaning of “obtain” — meaning of “keep a financial advantage that one has” — Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192D(1)(c)
CRIME — fraud — meaning of “deception” — where relevant deception was the “fraudulent transfer of money” — Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192E

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 192B(1), 192D, 192E
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166(1)(b)

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General’s Application pursuant to s 108 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): Re Robert Burton (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCCA 87
Bobbe v R (No 2) [2021] NSWCCA 150
Clarkson v R [1987] VR 962
Decision restricted [2019] NSWCCA 43
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ray [1974] AC 370
Duncan v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2016] NSWCA 143
Flack v R [2011] NSWCCA 167
Ho and Szeto v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 145
Layt v R [2020] NSWCCA 231
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41
Milne v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 149; [2014] HCA 4
National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Ltd v Batty (1986) 160 CLR 251; [1986] HCA 21
R v Clucas [1949] 2 KB 226
R v Glynatsis [2013] NSWCCA 131; (2013) 230 A Crim R 99
RvMurphy [1965] VicRp26; [1965] VR 187
R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
R v Toro-Martinez [2000] NSWCCA 216

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tracey Louise Hughes (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Higgins and M Keaney (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Crown)
Solicitors:
Cullen Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2019/209098
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

17 June 2020

Before:

McLennan SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/209098

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 29 January 2020 in the Lismore Local Court, the applicant, Ms Hughes, pleaded guilty to one “rolled up” count of obtaining…

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 Hughes v R

Details

AGLC: Hughes v R [2021] NSWCCA 238
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 238
Decision Date: 08 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hughes, appealed against her conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales, seeking leave to appeal against the conviction on the grounds that it was wrong in law and the element of deception was not made out. The applicant had pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The court was required to determine whether the applicant's plea of guilty was legally valid and if the element of deception was properly established in the context of the offence.

The court examined the nature of the applicant's guilty plea and its effect on the appeal, noting that the plea of guilty to the charge constituted an admission of all the elements of the offence. The court further considered whether there had been a miscarriage of justice, which would warrant the granting of leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the conviction was wrong in law or that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the applicant, by entering a plea of guilty, had admitted to all the elements of the offence, including the element of deception. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the meaning of "obtain" and "keep a financial advantage" should be narrowly construed, and that the deception element was not made out.

The court refused the applicant leave to appeal against her conviction and sentence. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the conviction was wrong in law or that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the applicant's guilty plea constituted an admission of all the elements of the offence, and that the element of deception was properly established. The court further held that the meaning of "obtain" and "keep a financial advantage" should not be narrowly construed, and that the deception element was made out. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Orders