R v Ireland; ex parte

[1995] QCA 75

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1995] QCA 075

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 526 of 1994
Brisbane
BeforeFitzgerald P. Pincus J.A. Davies J.A.
[Attorney-General v. Ireland]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

JANICE ELLEN IRELAND

REFERENCE UNDER S. 669A OF CRIMINAL CODE BY

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

FITZGERALD P.

PINCUS J.A. DAVIES J.A.

Judgment delivered 31/03/1995
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IN THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REFERENCE: "WERE THE CLAIM FORMS 'BOOKS OF ACCOUNT' WITHIN THE MEANING OF DIVISION 6 OF PART V OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 1977?" YES.

CATCHWORDS:	ATTORNEY-GENERAL REFERENCE s. 669A CRIMINAL CODE - false pretences - whether claim forms are books of account within the meaning of Division 6 of Part V of the Evidence Act 1977 (Q)
Counsel:	M. Byrne Q.C. for the Applicant, The Attorney- General T. Carmody for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Applicant Legal Aid Office for the Respondent

Date/s of Hearing:23 March 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 31/03/1995

Janice Ellen Ireland was put on trial on the District Court at

Townsville on 16 counts of obtaining money from the Commissioner

of Railways by false pretences. Following a ruling by the trial judge that certain claim forms were not "books of account"

within the meaning of Division 6 of Part V of the Evidence Act 1977, a nolle prosequi was entered in relation the indictment.

The Attorney-General has now referred the following point of law

to this Court for its consideration and opinion pursuant to s.

669A of the Criminal Code:

"Were the claim forms 'books of account' within the meaning

of Division 6 of Part V of the Evidence Act 1977?"

The respondent was represented before this Court, and lodged a

written submission formally contending that that question should be answered in the negative. However, when the matter came on

for argument, the respondent's counsel frankly conceded that he

was unable to adduce any argument to support that contention.

It seems that when an employee of the Commissioner for Railways

makes a claim for travelling allowance to reimburse him or her for transportation or accommodation expenses incurred in the

course of employment, a claim must be made on a standard form
which is submitted to the Commissioner. Broadly stated, the
claim forms contain:

(a)details of the travel or accommodation expenses of the

employee making the claim;

(b)the certification by the employee that the claim is in

accordance with the employer's requirements and that the

sum of money claimed is properly due and payable;

(c)verification, by an authorised accounting officer, that:

(i)the travel or accommodation was authorised;

(ii)receipts are attached;

(iii)the rate claimed is correct;

(iv)the arithmetic is correct; and

(v)the amount of money claimed has not previously been paid; and

(d)certification by the head of branch that the verification

referred to in paragraph (c) has been carried out.

There is a wide definition of "book of account" in s. 83 of the
Evidence Act, which is plainly wide enough to include the claim
forms. However, the trial judge said:
"It may be that in due course they do become part of the

company's books of account by acquiring an element of permanency, but I am unable to see that such forms ... can in the present circumstances properly be said to be books of account of the undertaking."

That view is contrary to both the language of the definition and

the authorities: see, e.g., R. v. Jones (1978) 1 W.L.R. 195 and

Ryan v. Etsa (1987) 47 S.A.S.R. 239.

Accordingly, the question involved in the point of law referred

to this Court by the Attorney-General should be answered "yes".