Legal Research
Cases
R v Fletcher

R v Fletcher

Case [2019] NSWDC 587 22 October 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fletcher [2019] NSWDC 587
Hearing dates: 17 – 18 October 2019
Date of orders: 22 October 2019
Decision date: 22 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: DCJ Beckett
Decision:
See [107]

Catchwords:
Criminal Law – Section 192E(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 – By deception dishonestly obtain a financial advantage/cause a financial disadvantage

Criminal Law and Procedure – Directed Acquittal
Key words – Online betting – bookmakers – Obtain financial advantage – Cause financial disadvantage – Gambling – effective cause – opportunity – benefit
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4B, Part 4AA, 192B, 192D, 192E(1)(b), 192F
Cases Cited: R v Button [1900] 2 QB 597
Case Stated by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) (No 2 of 1993) (1993) 70 A Crim R 323 (SASCFC)
Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207
Duncan & Ors v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2016] NSWCA 143
Gibbs v The Queen (1992) 58 SASR 347
Ho and Szeto v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 145
JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
Moylan v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 52; 169 A Crim R 302
R v Clucas [1949] 2 KM 226
R v Harris; R v Turner [1963] 2 WLR 851
R v King; R v Stockwell (1987) 1 QB 547
R v Lambassi [1927] VLR 349
R v Leung (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 450
R v Morris (1997) 98 A Crim R 408 (WACCA)
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
R v Saba [2013] QCA 275
Re Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410
Rex v Lewis (unreported), Somerset Assizes January 1922 (see C.R. Williams, Property Offences, below)
Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378
Texts Cited: C.R. Williams, Property Offences, Law Book Co., 3rd Ed, 1999 159
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Stephen Charles Fletcher
Department of Communities and Justice
Representation:
Counsel:
P. Boulten SC
C O’Donnell SC

Junior Counsel:
S. Jeliba
L. Hutchinson
Solicitors:
Cockburn and Co Solicitors
NSW Department of Justice Office of the General Counsel

File Number(s): 2017/328979
Publication restriction: There be suppression of:(i) any information that would reveal, or tend to reveal, the identity of the Crown witness referred to as Witness A including photographic images of the witness, except for the proper preparation and conduct of these proceedings;(ii) any information that would reveal or tend to reveal, the current employment status of the witness; and(iii) the notice of motion initiating the application for the suppression order and all submissions and evidence in relation to that notice of motion.Pursuant to an order made on 1 October 2019.

Judgment

The accused, Stephen Charles Fletcher was arraigned on 2 October 2019 on the presentation of an indictment charging 78 counts contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) asserting that he dishonestly either obtained a benefit or caused a disadvantage by a deceptive act. All 78 counts allege the same type of…

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 Fletcher

Details

AGLC: R v Fletcher [2019] NSWDC 587
Case: [2019] NSWDC 587
Decision Date: 22 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fletcher, the appellant was charged with obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The appellant was alleged to have manipulated online betting markets to gain a financial advantage through deception. The matter was heard and determined in the District Court of New South Wales. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal.

The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions amounted to obtaining a financial advantage by deception under section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The court had to consider whether the appellant's deception was the effective cause of the financial advantage he obtained, and whether there was a causal link between the deception and the financial benefit he received. The court also had to examine the nature of the deception and whether it was dishonest. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the prosecution had proved the appellant's knowledge and intention to deceive, and if the deception was directed towards a specific individual or entity.

The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary causal link between the appellant's deception and the financial advantage he obtained. The court found that while the appellant had engaged in dishonest conduct, this conduct was not the effective cause of the financial advantage he received. The court held that the appellant's actions did not constitute obtaining a financial advantage by deception under section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The court directed an acquittal, resulting in the appellant being acquitted of the charge.

The court's decision resulted in the appellant being acquitted of the charge. The conviction was quashed, and the court directed an acquittal. No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [107]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Fletcher [2019] NSWDC 587

Most Recent Citation

Racing New South Wales v Fletcher (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 67

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Racing New South Wales v Fletcher (No 2)
[2020] NSWCA 67 Para 5

…ons concerning criminal charges then pending against Mr Fletcher in the District Court. He was later acquitted of those charges: R v Fletcher [2019] NSWDC 587.…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

King v R
[2019] NZCA 413 Para 86

…The Crown argues that Clucas is not good law in Australia and that a broader approach ought be followed. In R v King; R v Stockwell (1987) 1 QB 547, the Court of Appeal, upheld convictions entered in respect of a deception pertaining to a false reason put forward to a property owner as to why some trees required r…
Duncan v Independent Commission Against Corruption
[2016] NSWCA 143 Para 67

…s that both that a financial advantage be obtained and that it be obtained by deception: Duncan & Ors v the Independent Commission Against Corruption [2016] NSWCA 143 (“ Duncan ”) [349] – [350] per Bathurst CJ.…
R v Saba
[2013] QCA 275

…(No 3) [2009] NSWSC 450 R v Morris (1997) 98 A Crim R 408 (WACCA) R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256 R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74 R v Saba [2013] QCA 275 Re Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410 Rex v Lewis (unreported), Somerset Assizes January 1922 (see C.R. Williams, Property Offences, below) Royall v…
Gibbs v The Queen
[2012] VSCA 241

…SASCFC) Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207 Duncan & Ors v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2016] NSWCA 143 Gibbs v The Queen (1992) 58 SASR 347 Ho and Szeto v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 145 JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39 Moylan v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 52; 169 A Crim R 302 R v Clucas [1949] 2 KM 226 R v Har…
Flack v R
[2011] NSWCCA 167 Para 37

…the means by which the money was obtained or the effective cause of it being obtained: at 147; see also Clarkson v R [1987] VR 962 at 980; Flack v R [2011] NSWCCA 167 at [37]-[38]; R v Clucas [1949] 2 KB 226 at 229-230.…
R v PL
[2009] NSWCCA 256 Para 61

…g (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 450 and no issue was taken with, or criticism made of, that expression of the relevant principles on appeal to the CCA [ R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256]. In that case, his Honour said (at [3]-[6] inclusive) that:…
R v Philip Wan Por LEUNG (No 3)
[2009] NSWSC 450 Para 61

…The approach to applications of this kind were conveniently summarised by Rothman J in R v Leung (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 450 and no issue was taken with, or criticism made of, that expression of the relevant principles on appeal to the CCA [ R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256]. In that case, his Honour said (at [3]-[6] inclusive…
Moylan v The State of Western Australia
[2007] WASCA 52 Para 89

…tage might be obtained in circumstances where the legislation referred to benefit rather than financial advantage: Moylan v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 52; 169 A Crim R 302. This approach was compared to R v Saba [2013] QCA where the Queensland legislation provided for an offence arising from a dishonest act th…
Royall v The Queen
[1991] HCA 27 Para 87

…Similarly, the Crown rely on Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378 to allow for the jury to decide the question as to causation (Mason CJ at 387) by applying their common sense to the facts as they find them, and that the purpose of the inquiry is to attribute legal responsibility in a criminal matter (Deane and Daws…
Doney v The Queen
[1990] HCA 51

…[1900] 2 QB 597 Case Stated by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) (No 2 of 1993) (1993) 70 A Crim R 323 (SASCFC) Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207 Duncan & Ors v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2016] NSWCA 143 Gibbs v The Queen (1992) 58 SASR 347 Ho and Szeto v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 145 JM…
Royall v The Queen
[1990] HCATrans 270

…1983) [1983] 2 VR 410 Rex v Lewis (unreported), Somerset Assizes January 1922 (see C.R. Williams, Property Offences, below) Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378 Texts Cited: C.R. Williams, Property Offences, Law Book Co., 3rd Ed, 1999 159 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Stephen Charles Fletcher Department of Communit…
[1949] 2 KB 226
[1949] 2 KB 226 Para 37

…or the effective cause of it being obtained: at 147; see also Clarkson v R [1987] VR 962 at 980; Flack v R [2011] NSWCCA 167 at [37]-[38]; R v Clucas [1949] 2 KB 226 at 229-230.…
[1900] 2 QB 597
[1900] 2 QB 597 Para 83

…d on false pretences as to their handicap and after having been granted entry into the competition, won the race and received the prize money: Button [1900] 2 QB 597; Lambassi [1927] VLR 349. In Lamrassi , McArthur J said (at 300):…
[1963] 2 WLR 851
[1963] 2 WLR 851 Para 84

…ompetitors, whereas in Clucas there was no established influence over the outcome as to which horse won the race. As stated in R v Harris; R v Turner [1963] 2 WLR 851, at 446 by Ashurst J (emphasis added):…
[1959] 1 WLR 244
[1959] 1 WLR 244 Para 104

…It is noted that Mr Clucas came before the court again for similar conduct: see R v Clucas & O’Rourke [1959] 1 WLR 244 in which Mr Clucas and Mr O’Rourke were charged with obtaining money by fraud in wagering under the Gaming Act 1845 . In that case s 17 of the Gaming Act provided as follows:…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
192B, 192D, 192E(1)(b), 192F, 4B 6 mentions (from Para 1)
Gaming Act 1845 c.109
1 mention (from Para 104)
Vakauta v Kelly
1 mention (from Para 104)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Fletcher [2019] NSWDC 587
Hearing dates:	17 – 18 October 2019
Date of orders:	22 October 2019
Decision date:	22 October 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	DCJ Beckett
Decision:	See [107]
Catchwords:	Criminal Law – Section 192E(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 – By deception dishonestly obtain a financial advantage/cause a financial disadvantage Criminal Law and Procedure – Directed Acquittal Key words – Online betting – bookmakers – Obtain financial advantage – Cause financial disadvantage – Gambling – effective cause – opportunity – benefit
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4B, Part 4AA, 192B, 192D, 192E(1)(b), 192F
Cases Cited:	R v Button [1900] 2 QB 597 Case Stated by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) (No 2 of 1993) (1993) 70 A Crim R 323 (SASCFC) Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207 Duncan & Ors v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2016] NSWCA 143 Gibbs v The Queen (1992) 58 SASR 347 Ho and Szeto v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 145 JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39 Moylan v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 52; 169 A Crim R 302 R v Clucas [1949] 2 KM 226 R v Harris; R v Turner [1963] 2 WLR 851 R v King; R v Stockwell (1987) 1 QB 547 R v Lambassi [1927] VLR 349 R v Leung (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 450 R v Morris (1997) 98 A Crim R 408 (WACCA) R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256 R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74 R v Saba [2013] QCA 275 Re Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410 Rex v Lewis (unreported), Somerset Assizes January 1922 (see C.R. Williams, Property Offences, below) Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378
Texts Cited:	C.R. Williams, Property Offences, Law Book Co., 3rd Ed, 1999 159
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Stephen Charles Fletcher Department of Communities and Justice
Representation:	Counsel: P. Boulten SC C O’Donnell SC Junior Counsel: S. Jeliba L. Hutchinson Solicitors: Cockburn and Co Solicitors NSW Department of Justice Office of the General Counsel
File Number(s):	2017/328979
Publication restriction:	There be suppression of:(i) any information that would reveal, or tend to reveal, the identity of the Crown witness referred to as Witness A including photographic images of the witness, except for the proper preparation and conduct of these proceedings;(ii) any information that would reveal or tend to reveal, the current employment status of the witness; and(iii) the notice of motion initiating the application for the suppression order and all submissions and evidence in relation to that notice of motion.Pursuant to an order made on 1 October 2019.