R v Fraser-Adams - [2001] NTSC 111

R v Fraser-Adams [2001] NTSC 111
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

SUSAN FRASER-ADAMS

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO: (200004375)
DELIVERED:  7 December 2001
HEARING DATES:  26 November 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MILDREN J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:M Grogan
Accused:S Tilmouth QC and M Carter
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Thomas Berkley
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Mil01263
Number of pages:  11

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT Darwin
(20004375)
R v Fraser-Adams [2001] NTSC 111

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Plaintiff

AND:

SUSAN FRASER-ADAMS

Defendant

CORAM: MILDREN J
REASONS FOR RULING
(Delivered 7 December 2001)

This is an application pursuant to ss 312 and 339 of the Criminal Code (NT) to quash the indictment or alternatively, pursuant to ss 309 and 341 of the Code, to order that there be a separate trial of count 1 on the indictment.
The indictment charges the accused with 36 counts of obtaining property being part of the proceeds of a cheque by deception, by falsely representing in a report that certain sums of money were due and payable when to the accused's knowledge they were not, contrary to s 227(1) of the Code.
At the hearing of the application, Mr Tilmouth QC for the accused, limited his submissions to an application for severance. There is in my opinion no basis for an order quashing the indictment.
The first argument presented by Mr Tilmouth QC on behalf of the accused is that count 1 has been improperly joined with the other counts on the indictment. In order to understand this submission, it was submitted by Mr Tilmouth QC for the accused that it is necessary to consider the way the Crown intends to put its case to the jury and the way the defence proposes to put its case.
The accused is a director of a company called Ochre Pty Ltd (Ochre) and for present purposes I assume that the Crown will be contending that she was Ochre's mind and will, such that whatever acts were done by Ochre were done by her personally or with her knowledge and approval. Ochre's business was that of a contract manager between building owners, whom Ochre represented as agent, and building contractors. Ochre engaged various building contractors from time to time on behalf of Ochre's clients for various building works to be done. The works were the subject of written quotations submitted by the building contractors to Ochre. When a particular job was satisfactorily completed, the building contractor concerned submitted an invoice to Ochre which provided a report to the client recommending payment of the invoice. The client would then pay Ochre which in turn would pay the builder's invoice. Ochre of course charged its clients for its work and I presume that when payment was made by the client, if the job was completed, the client's payment included an amount for Ochre's fees. Ochre operated a small…

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 Fraser-Adams

Details

AGLC: R v Fraser-Adams [2001] NTSC 111
Case: [2001] NTSC 111
Decision Date: 7 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fraser-Adams involved the accused, Susan Fraser-Adams, being charged with multiple counts of obtaining property by deception. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was tasked with determining whether the charges could be properly joined in one indictment and, if not, whether count 1 should be severed from the remaining counts. The primary legal issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence from count 1 in relation to the other counts and whether the accused would be prejudiced by having all counts tried together. Mildren J concluded that the charges could be properly joined as they constituted a series of offences of the same or similar character. The court found that the evidence from count 1 was relevant and admissible in relation to the other counts, and that the accused would not be prejudiced by having all counts tried together. Therefore, the applications to quash the indictment or to order a separate trial for count 1 were refused.

Mildren J began by examining the nature of the charges and the factual background of the case. The accused was alleged to have engaged in a scheme to overcharge clients of Ochre Pty Ltd, a company she directed, by altering invoices and retaining the excess funds. Count 1 specifically involved the accused allegedly directing an increase in an invoice amount, while the remaining counts involved similar conduct by other individuals under her direction. Mildren J noted the similarities in the legal and factual elements of the charges, which supported joining them in one indictment. The court rejected the argument that the evidence from count 1 should not be admissible in relation to the other counts, finding that it was relevant to proving the accused's knowledge of the fraudulent scheme. The court also considered the potential prejudice to the accused if all counts were tried together, but concluded that any prejudice could be mitigated by appropriate jury directions. As a result, the applications to quash the indictment or to order a separate trial for count 1 were dismissed.

Orders