TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS) JURISDICTION: APPELLATE FILE NO/S: CCA 28/2005 DELIVERED ON: 31 July 2007 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 14, 15 November 2006 JUDGMENT OF: Crawford, Evans and Tennent JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Particular offences – Property offences – Misappropriation – Fraudulent misappropriation and omission to account – Meaning of "dishonestly".
Criminal Law - Particular offences – Property offences – Misappropriation – Fraudulent misappropriation and omission to account – Money received by company – Whether money received by director.
Criminal Law – Evidence – Matters relating to proof – Standard of proof – Direction to jury – Generally – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Whether misdirection to instruct jury to analyse whether doubt reasonable – Whether direction departed from traditional formula.
Criminal Law – Evidence – Evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused persons – Corroboration – Warning required or advisable – Accomplices – Generally – Content of required warning – Effect of Evidence Act 2001 on common law requirements.
Criminal Law – Evidence – Evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused persons – Corroboration – What constitutes corroboration – Admissions and conduct of accused – False statements – Creation of false document in support of defence – Whether used as evidence of consciousness of guilt – Direction to jury.
Counsel: Appellant: M J Croucher Respondent: D G Coates SC and M P Shirley Solicitors: Appellant: In person Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 56 Number of paragraphs: 111
Serial No 56/2007
File No CCA 28/2005
JON LJUBINKO JOVANOVIC v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CRAWFORD J (Dissenting) EVANS J TENNENT J 31 July 2007
Orders of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 56/2007
File No CCA 28/2005
JON LJUBINKO JOVANOVIC v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
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 Jovanovic v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jovanovic v The Queen [2007] TASSC 56
Case
[2007] TASSC 56
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Jovanovic v The Queen involved a defendant who was charged with fraudulent misappropriation and omission to account for funds misappropriated while in a position of trust. The defendant, a former employee, was entrusted with financial responsibilities, and it was alleged that he had dishonestly misappropriated funds and failed to account for them. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue was the interpretation of the term "dishonestly" in the context of the charges. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted dishonesty under the law. This involved examining the circumstances surrounding the misappropriation and the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offence.
The High Court found that the term "dishonestly" should be interpreted in accordance with ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. The court held that the defendant's actions were dishonest because they involved a breach of trust and a knowing disregard of the rights of the employer. The court emphasised that the term "dishonestly" does not require proof of moral wrongdoing but rather a lack of honesty in the legal sense. The High Court ultimately ruled in favour of the prosecution, affirming the defendant's conviction for fraudulent misappropriation and omission to account.
The final orders of the court confirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, reflecting the court's interpretation of the term "dishonestly" and the applicable legal standards. The case serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving similar charges and interpretations of dishonesty in the context of property offences.