R v Donjerkovic
Case
•
[2012] SASCFC 2
•11 January 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Donjerkovic [2012] SASCFC 2
[2012] SASCFC 2
11 January 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Mr Donjerkovic, was convicted by a jury on six counts of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 139 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA). The appellant appealed these convictions to the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute centred on whether the deception alleged by the prosecution had caused the detriment suffered by the victim, Mr Doyle, as required for a conviction under the Act.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the jury’s finding that the appellant’s deception caused the victim’s detriment was open to them on the evidence. This required the Court to consider the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury on the question of causation, specifically whether the deception was operative at the time of the withdrawals from the joint venture account and whether it led to the victim’s loss.
The Court reasoned that the appellant had deceived Mr Doyle by representing that funds transferred into a joint venture account would be used solely for the improvement and sale of a specific property. In reality, the appellant had no such arrangement and intended to use the funds for his own purposes. The Court found that the appellant’s continued misrepresentations, even after the initial transfer of funds, fostered Mr Doyle’s belief and caused him to leave the money at the appellant’s disposal. Applying a common-sense approach to causation for the purposes of criminal responsibility, the Court concluded that the appellant’s deceit was the means by which he gained access to the funds and was therefore the cause of the detriment suffered by Mr Doyle. The Court held that the trial judge’s directions on causation, while brief, were adequate, as they directed the jury to consider whether the deception was still operative at the time of each withdrawal and to give the word "caused" a broad meaning.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court finding that the jury’s verdict was open to them on the evidence and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the jury’s finding that the appellant’s deception caused the victim’s detriment was open to them on the evidence. This required the Court to consider the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury on the question of causation, specifically whether the deception was operative at the time of the withdrawals from the joint venture account and whether it led to the victim’s loss.
The Court reasoned that the appellant had deceived Mr Doyle by representing that funds transferred into a joint venture account would be used solely for the improvement and sale of a specific property. In reality, the appellant had no such arrangement and intended to use the funds for his own purposes. The Court found that the appellant’s continued misrepresentations, even after the initial transfer of funds, fostered Mr Doyle’s belief and caused him to leave the money at the appellant’s disposal. Applying a common-sense approach to causation for the purposes of criminal responsibility, the Court concluded that the appellant’s deceit was the means by which he gained access to the funds and was therefore the cause of the detriment suffered by Mr Doyle. The Court held that the trial judge’s directions on causation, while brief, were adequate, as they directed the jury to consider whether the deception was still operative at the time of each withdrawal and to give the word "caused" a broad meaning.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court finding that the jury’s verdict was open to them on the evidence and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Charge
-
Causation
-
Intention
-
Sentencing
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Donjerkovic [2012] SASCFC 2
Most Recent Citation
Collins v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 96
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
1
Royall v The Queen
[1991] HCA 27
Royall v The Queen
[1991] HCA 27