Police v William Michael Cannon - [2011] NSWLC 29

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Police v William Michael CANNON [2011] NSWLC 29
Hearing dates: 16-17/03/2011; 25/05/2011; 29/08/2011
Decision date: 19 September 2011
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Magistrate Tsavdaridis
Decision:
Offences proved beyond reasonable doubt
Accused found guilty of sequences 1, 2 and 3

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - obtain benefit (money) by deception - elements of offence - money obtained via fraudulent loan applications and forged mortgage documents
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Amendment (Fraud, Identity and Forgery Offences) Act 2009
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Interpretation Act 1987
Cases Cited: Balcombe v De Simoni (1972) 126 CLR 576
Corporate Affairs Commission v Papoulias (1990) 20 NSWLR 503
Cutter v R (1997) 143 ALR 498
Flack v R [2011] NSWCCA 167
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
Glenister v R [1980] 2 NSWLR 597
Langham v R (1984) 12 A Crim R 391
Parker v R (1963) 111 CLR 610
Pereira v DPP (1988) 82 ALR 217
Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493
R v Adler [2002] NSWCCA 180
R v Balnaves (2000) 117 A Crim R 85
R v Feely [1973] 1 All ER 341
R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689
R v Licardy (Unreported, NSWCCA, 26/5/95)
R v Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17
R v McQueeney (1989) 39 A Crim R 56
R v O'Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64
R v Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381
Re London and Globe Finance Corp Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728
Simpson v R (1998) 194 CLR 228
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
NSW Police Force (Prosecuting Authority)
William Michael Cannon (Accused)
Representation: Sgt Gorman (for NSW Police Force)
Mr Ryan (for Accused)

File Number(s): 2010/303181

JUDGMENT and Reasons for Decision

Background

The Accused comes before the Court charged with three counts of obtaining a benefit by deception, contrary to s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900. The matter came before the Court on 21 December 2010, at which time it was specially fixed for a two-day hearing to commence on 16 March 2011. The matter was set down for mention on 22 February 2011, at which time the special fixture was confirmed. The Accused was legally represented on 21 December 2010 when the matter was fixed for hearing and, indeed, on the two prior occasions when the matter came before the Court.

On 4 March 2011, the Accused's then solicitor wrote to the Court advising that he no longer held instructions and withdrew from the proceedings. On the morning of the hearing on 16 March 2011, the Accused appeared unrepresented and made an application to vacate the hearing date. Notice that such application would be made was not provided to the Court until oral submissions were made by the Accused on the morning of the hearing. Notice that such application would be made was not provided to the prosecution until the day before the hearing when the Accused telephoned the prosecutor to inform him of his position. The application was opposed by…

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 Police v William Michael Cannon

Details

AGLC: Police v William Michael Cannon [2011] NSWLC 29
Case: [2011] NSWLC 29
Decision Date: 19 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved William Michael Cannon, who was charged with multiple counts of obtaining a benefit by deception. The charges stemmed from his actions in submitting fraudulent loan applications and forged mortgage documents. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The prosecution alleged that the accused had deliberately misled financial institutions to obtain loans and other benefits under false pretences.

The court had to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had obtained a benefit by deception. This involved examining the elements of the offence, including whether there was a deception, whether the deception was intentional, and whether the deception resulted in the accused obtaining a benefit. The court also considered the admissibility and weight of various pieces of evidence, including the forged documents and testimonies from witnesses.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence presented. It found that the accused had indeed engaged in a series of fraudulent activities, successfully deceiving the financial institutions involved. The court concluded that the deceptions were intentional and that they directly resulted in the accused obtaining loans and other financial benefits. As a result, the court found the accused guilty on all charges. The court's findings were based on the clear and convincing evidence presented, which demonstrated the accused's deliberate and calculated actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Offences proved beyond reasonable doubt

Accused found guilty of sequences 1, 2 and 3

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Police v William Michael CANNON [2011] NSWLC 29
Hearing dates:	16-17/03/2011; 25/05/2011; 29/08/2011
Decision date:	19 September 2011
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Magistrate Tsavdaridis
Decision:	Offences proved beyond reasonable doubt Accused found guilty of sequences 1, 2 and 3
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - obtain benefit (money) by deception - elements of offence - money obtained via fraudulent loan applications and forged mortgage documents
Legislation Cited:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Crimes Act 1900 Crimes Amendment (Fraud, Identity and Forgery Offences) Act 2009 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Interpretation Act 1987
Cases Cited:	Balcombe v De Simoni (1972) 126 CLR 576 Corporate Affairs Commission v Papoulias (1990) 20 NSWLR 503 Cutter v R (1997) 143 ALR 498 Flack v R [2011] NSWCCA 167 Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 Glenister v R [1980] 2 NSWLR 597 Langham v R (1984) 12 A Crim R 391 Parker v R (1963) 111 CLR 610 Pereira v DPP (1988) 82 ALR 217 Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493 R v Adler [2002] NSWCCA 180 R v Balnaves (2000) 117 A Crim R 85 R v Feely [1973] 1 All ER 341 R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689 R v Licardy (Unreported, NSWCCA, 26/5/95) R v Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17 R v McQueeney (1989) 39 A Crim R 56 R v O'Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64 R v Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381 Re London and Globe Finance Corp Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728 Simpson v R (1998) 194 CLR 228
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	NSW Police Force (Prosecuting Authority) William Michael Cannon (Accused)
Representation:	Sgt Gorman (for NSW Police Force) Mr Ryan (for Accused)
File Number(s):	2010/303181