Pike v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 32

CITATION: Pike v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 32

HEARING DATE(S): 13/02/2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; James J at 2; Buddin J at 117

DECISION: Appeal against conviction on counts 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 allowed. Appeal against conviction on count 1 dismissed. Leave to appeal against the sentence on count 1 granted. Appeal against sentence on count 1 dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – CONVICTION APPEAL - charges of dishonestly obtaining money by deception – whether verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – whether trial judge erred in failing to grant an application by the appellant for an adjournment so as to secure the attendance of witnesses – whether the trial judge failed to correct a mistake in the Crown’s closing address – SENTENCE – whether sentencing judge had failed to take into account onerous bail conditions

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Criminal Appeal Act

CASES CITED: MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81

PARTIES: Andrew Howard John PIKE v REGINA

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/1890

COUNSEL: In Person - Appellant
Dr P Power SC - Crown

SOLICITORS: -
Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0427

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McLoughlin DCJ

2005/1890

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
JAMES J
BUDDIN J
Friday 3 March 2006

Andrew Howard John PIKE v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with James J.

2 JAMES J: Andrew Howard John Pike (“the appellant” or “Mr Pike”) appealed against his convictions, after a trial in the District Court before his Honour Judge McLoughlin and a jury, on seven charges of dishonestly obtaining money by deception. In the event of his appeal against conviction being dismissed, the appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by Judge McLoughlin. Mr Pike was not legally represented and appeared for himself, both at the trial and on this appeal.

3 On 6 December 2004, being the date on which the trial commenced, Mr Pike made an application for an adjournment of the trial. This application was refused by Judge McLoughlin. Mr Pike was then arraigned on an indictment containing fourteen counts, to each of which he pleaded not guilty. Having regard to the grounds of appeal against conviction relied on by Mr Pike and the grounds on which I consider that the appeal against conviction should be determined, it is appropriate to set out in full the terms of the counts in the indictment against Mr Pike:-

“1. For that he on or about 9 November 1999 at Bathurst in the State of New South Wales by deception, namely by falsely representing to Stuart Birk that he was a solicitor and that he would invest moneys advanced to him, dishonestly obtained for himself money namely an amount of $10,000 from Stuart Birk.

2.…

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 Pike v Regina

Details

AGLC: Pike v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 32
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 32
Decision Date: 3 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Pike, appealed against his convictions for dishonestly obtaining money by deception. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, whether the trial judge erred in not granting an adjournment to secure the attendance of witnesses, whether the trial judge failed to correct an error in the Crown’s closing address, and whether the sentencing judge failed to consider onerous bail conditions. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were unreasonable in light of the evidence, whether the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment was erroneous, and whether the trial judge failed to correct an error in the Crown’s closing address. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentencing judge failed to consider the impact of onerous bail conditions on the appellant's circumstances.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in refusing the adjournment application, as there was no reasonable prospect that the additional witnesses would have provided evidence that would have led to a different outcome. The court also determined that any error in the Crown’s closing address did not affect the safety of the verdicts. Regarding the sentencing, the court held that the sentencing judge was not obliged to consider the bail conditions, as they were not relevant to the sentencing process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and affirm the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts.

Orders