Parsons v The Queen

The appeal concerned Roumald Charles Parsons and The Queen, with the appellant seeking to appeal his conviction for dishonestly obtaining property by deception. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charges but contended that, based on the admitted facts, he could not have been lawfully convicted. The Victorian Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his application for leave to appeal, and this appeal was brought before the High Court of Australia by special leave.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether a cheque constitutes "property belonging to another" for the purposes of the offence of obtaining property by deception, and whether a person can possess the requisite intention to permanently deprive another of a cheque. The appellant's argument hinged on the nature of a cheque, particularly bank cheques, and whether it could be considered property in the context of the criminal charges.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that a cheque, even a bank cheque, is a form of valuable security and thus constitutes property. The court adopted the reasoning of the Victorian Court of Appeal, which held that once a cheque is used and presented to the bank, it ceases to be a valuable security and becomes a record of a transaction. Applying this to the relevant section of the Crimes Act, the court concluded that the intention to permanently deprive the victim of the cheque could be established by putting the cheque to a use that would render it spent and devoid of its essential characteristics as property.

The appeal was dismissed.