McRae v Dansey-Ayling

The case of McRae v Dansey-Ayling involved the defendant, Dansey-Ayling, being charged with two counts of obtaining property by deception and one count of attempting to obtain property by deception. The property was obtained through the use of the complainant's bank card at various merchants. The specific property in question was a sum of money. The case was heard in the ACT Supreme Court. The legal issues at the heart of this case centred on the application of section 330 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and the nature of the evidence required to support charges of obtaining and attempting to obtain property by deception. Specifically, the court had to determine whether explicit evidence of both a corresponding debit and credit was necessary, and whether section 330 could support a charge of attempting to obtain property by deception.

The court examined the case of R v Potts (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 370 to guide its interpretation of section 330. The court concluded that while explicit evidence of both a corresponding debit and credit was not strictly required, the prosecution must establish a causal link between the defendant's actions and the acquisition of property by deception. Regarding the charge of attempting to obtain property by deception, the court found that section 330 could indeed support such a charge if the prosecution could demonstrate that the defendant took a substantial step towards the commission of the offence but did not ultimately succeed. The court emphasised that the prosecution must prove the defendant's intent and the substantial step taken towards the commission of the offence.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the charges against the defendant, finding that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to establish the necessary causal link and intent required for the charges to be upheld. The court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of section 330 and the application of the principles set out in R v Potts (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 370. The court's decision underscores the importance of clear and compelling evidence in criminal cases involving obtaining property by deception.