Legal Research
Cases
R v Butler

R v Butler

Case [2012] HCATrans 196 17 August 2012

Charge

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2012] HCATrans 196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M8 of 2012

B e t w e e n -
THE QUEEN
Applicant
and
LAWRENCE ALEXANDER BUTLER
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 17 AUGUST 2012, AT 11.15 AM

MR T. GYORFFY, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS D. KARAMICOV, for the applicant. (instructed by Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria)

MR N. PAPAS, SC: I appear on behalf of the respondent, if it please the Court. (instructed by Doogue & O’Brien)

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Gyorffy.

MR GYORFFY: Your Honours, could I get straight to the point. The issue here really is the method used by the court to come to its decision. What we submit is that this is an appropriate case for the Court to look at the way in which Weissensteiner should be applied by intermediate Courts of Appeal. The issue arises very neatly because the different approach is taken by his Honour the President whose approach, we submit, was correct, and the majority, whose judgment is the judgment of Justice Ashley, who we say, in effect, have double dipped in the equation.

Now, we have been very bold, your Honours, and we are attempting to explain the application of Weissensteiner by the preparation of a concept map, if your Honours would entertain looking at it, as a means of explaining Weissensteiner. I will hand one up for each of your Honours. My learned friend has a copy.

HAYNE J: While that is on its way up to us, Mr Gyorffy, in fact the accused man had given an account of events in the record of interview, had he not?

MR GYORFFY: A denial?

HAYNE J: Yes.

MR GYORFFY: Yes.

HAYNE J: The record of interview was before the jury?

MR GYORFFY: Yes.

HAYNE J: Yes.

MR GYORFFY: The jury convicted.

HAYNE J: What he wanted to say, what he could explain had all been asked about by the police and he had given whatever explanation he wanted to, to them, had he not?

MR GYORFFY: Well, not in relation to what happened, your Honour. That is the issue. If I could take your Honours through that concept chart or map, on the left‑hand side is what we say would be the normal course for a decision, a conclusion being reached in relation to murder. The fundamental question is did the accused murder the victim? So what the jury would look at is all the proven evidence in the prosecution case. The first question it had to consider here was whether the victim was dead and that was the main point that was run, your Honour, to answer your Honour’s question. That was the main point that was run by the defence, “He is not dead. I had nothing to do…

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 R v Butler

Details

AGLC: R v Butler [2012] HCATrans 196
Case: [2012] HCATrans 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Butler* concerned an appeal by the applicant, Butler, against his conviction for the offence of obtaining financial advantage by deception. The dispute arose from allegations that Butler had dishonestly represented to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia that he was entitled to a tax refund, thereby inducing the bank to advance him funds. The appeal was heard by Gummow and Hayne JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant's conduct constituted obtaining a financial advantage by deception within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant's misrepresentation was a deception that caused the bank to part with money it would not otherwise have advanced, thereby conferring a financial advantage on the applicant.

Gummow and Hayne JJ reasoned that the offence required proof that the deception directly led to the financial advantage. They applied the principle that a financial advantage is obtained if a person receives something of value that they were not entitled to, or if they are relieved of a liability they would otherwise have had to discharge. In this instance, the court found that the applicant had not been deceived into parting with money, but rather that the bank had advanced funds based on a false representation of entitlement to a tax refund. The court held that the applicant had not obtained a financial advantage by deception as contemplated by the Act, as the bank's action was not a disposition of property induced by the deception.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered that a verdict of acquittal be entered.

Orders