R v Judith McAllister - [2015] ACTSC 70

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Judith McAllister
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 70
Hearing Date(s):	10 March 2015
DecisionDate:	10 March 2015
Delivery of Reasons Date:	11 March 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	That the printout of the payroll records of Belgravia Health and Leisure Group Pty Ltd for Judith Anne McAllister and Sophie McAllister be admitted.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	TRIAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Document – Representation – Documents containing representations – Business records – Printed payroll records stored in computer
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 69, 144, 146, 147, s 6 Pt 2 Sch 1, s 8 Pt 2 Sch 1 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), Dictionary, Pt 1 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 326, 331
Cases Cited:	Ah-See v Heilpern (Re A (a child)) (2000) 115 A Crim R 1 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Advanced Medical Institute Pty Limited [No 2] (2005) 147 FCR 235 Edmond-Jones Pty Limited and Anor v Australian Women’s Hockey Association Incorporated [1999] NSWSC 285 R v Dudko (2002) 132 A Crim R 371 Vitali v Stachnik [2001] NSWSC 303
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Judith McAllister (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K MacKenzie (Crown) Mr A Williamson (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 26 of 2014

Refshauge J:

Judith Ann McAllister is accused of committing two offences against s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), namely that she, by deception, dishonestly obtained property belonging to the company managing the Lakeside Leisure Centre in Tuggeranong. The offence is sought to be proved by reliance on a general deficiency in the property, as provided for under s 331 of the Criminal Code, but that is not directly relevant to these reasons.

Ms McAllister has pleaded not guilty to the charges and, as explained by her counsel, Mr A Williamson, in his opening to the jury, she denies portions of the allegations in the first count and, so far as the balance is concerned and as to the second count, asserts a claim of right, claiming that she was authorised by an officer of the company to engage in the relevant claims for payment made by her. In substance, the Crown alleges that Ms McAllister participated in the submission of timesheets for work said to have been done by her daughter Sophie McAllister, which work was not in fact done by her.

The company, relying on these inaccurate timesheets, is said to have paid money, as wages, which is said to have ultimately been received by the accused, being the alleged obtaining of property. One of the witnesses called by the Crown was Mr A Neill, the payroll manager of the company. The Crown sought to tender, through him, certain payroll records. Those records were retained in the computer system of the company. The tender consisted of a printout of those records. The tender was opposed. I permitted it; these are my…

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 Judith McAllister

Details

AGLC: R v Judith McAllister [2015] ACTSC 70
Case: [2015] ACTSC 70
Decision Date: 20 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was R v Judith McAllister, where the central issue was the admissibility of a document used as evidence in the trial. The defendant, Judith McAllister, was accused of various charges, and the prosecution sought to introduce a printout of payroll records from Belgravia Health and Leisure Group Pty Ltd as evidence. The crux of the legal debate was whether the printed payroll records, stored in a computer system and subsequently printed out, qualified as admissible business records under the applicable legal standards.

The court had to determine if the printed payroll records met the criteria for admissibility as business records, specifically whether they were made in the regular course of business and whether they contained representations that accurately reflected the information recorded at the time. The defence argued that the printouts did not meet the necessary standards as they were not contemporaneous with the events they purported to record. The prosecution contended that the records were sufficiently reliable and regular business practice to be admissible.

In its reasoning, the court found that the printed payroll records were indeed made in the regular course of business and accurately reflected the information recorded at the time. The court held that the printouts constituted business records and were therefore admissible as evidence. The court's decision hinged on the reliability and regularity of the records, noting that they met the legal criteria for admissibility despite being stored in a computer system. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the prosecution, allowing the printout of the payroll records to be admitted as evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the printout of the payroll records of Belgravia Health and Leisure Group Pty Ltd for Judith Anne McAllister and Sophie McAllister be admitted.

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.