Appeal and new trial - Charge of fraud under s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code - Intent to defraud - Appropriate directions to jury - Error of confusing actual subjective intent under s 409(1)(c) with objective requirement of s 24 defence - Proof of intent - Relevance of good character - Circumstances where good character direction required - Circumstances where conviction quashed and verdict and judgment of acquittal entered

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 24, s 409(1)(c)

Result:

Conviction quashed
Judgment of acquittal

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437
Attwood v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 353
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
Director of Public Prosecutions for Nauru v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627
Ibbs v The Queen [2001] WASCA 129
Ilich v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 110
King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423
Parker v The Queen (1997) 186 CLR 494
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619
Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536
R v Schmahl [1965] VR 745
Reg v Berrada (Note) (1989) 91 Cr App R 131
Reg v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471
Regina v Aziz [1996] AC 41
Reid v The Queen [1980] AC 343
Simic v The Queen (1980) 144 CLR 319
The King v Wilkes (1948) 77 CLR 511
Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MALCOLM CJ: This was an appeal against conviction. On 24 November 2000 the appellant was convicted on four counts under s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code on an indictment which alleged that, on 29 December 1998 at Maddington, the appellant, with intent to defraud, by fraudulent means, gained a benefit on three occasions in amounts of $4,000, $5,000 and $30,000 for Mathews Drilling Services. The fourth count, which was for the same offence, was that on 31 December 1998 at Maddington, with intent to defraud, by fraudulent means, the appellant gained a benefit in the amount of $100,000 for Mathews Drilling Services.
The appellant was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment on 15 January 2001 for 10 months on each count to be served cumulatively. The total term of imprisonment was, therefore, 3 years and 4 months. An order was made backdating the sentence to 24 November 2000 when the appellant was first taken into custody.
Notice of an application for leave to appeal against conviction under s 688(1)(b) of the

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 Mathews v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mathews v The Queen [2001] WASCA 264
Case: [2001] WASCA 264
Decision Date: 31 AUGUST 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Mathews v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted by a jury of fraud under section 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, which concerns the intent to defraud. The respondent, The Queen, brought the charges against the appellant for fraudulent activities. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge had incorrectly directed the jury on the required intent under section 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. The appellant claimed that the judge had confused the actual subjective intent required by section 409(1)(c) with the objective requirement of section 24 of the Code, which pertains to the defence of belief in a mistaken fact.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury regarding the required intent for the offence of fraud under section 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. The court had to determine if the judge's directions had misdirected the jury in distinguishing between the subjective intent necessary for the offence and the objective requirement for the defence of belief in a mistaken fact. Additionally, the court considered the relevance of the appellant's good character in the context of the jury's decision-making process and whether the trial judge had correctly advised the jury on this matter. The High Court also examined the circumstances in which a good character direction is required and the implications of an incorrect direction on the validity of the conviction.

The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed misdirected the jury in distinguishing between the subjective intent required for the offence of fraud and the objective requirement for the defence of belief in a mistaken fact. The court held that the judge had failed to adequately separate these two concepts, leading to a potential misapplication of the law. The High Court determined that this error was significant enough to warrant a quashing of the conviction. As a result, the court entered a verdict and judgment of acquittal for the appellant, finding that the misdirection by the trial judge had a substantial impact on the outcome of the trial. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of clear and accurate jury directions in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving complex legal distinctions.

Orders