R v Judith McAllister - [2015] ACTSC 82

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Judith McAllister
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 82
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 82
Case: [2015] ACTSC 82
Decision Date: 10 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Judith McAllister, the matter was heard in a court of law in Australia. The defendant, Judith McAllister, was involved in a dispute concerning the admissibility of certain documents in evidence. The nature of the dispute was focused on the acceptance of printed payroll records as business records within the court proceedings.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were centred on the admissibility of the documents in question. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the printout of the payroll records of Belgravia Health and Leisure Group Pty Ltd for Judith Anne McAllister and Sophie McAllister could be admitted as evidence. This involved examining the nature of the documents and whether they constituted business records, as well as considering the method by which the records were stored and produced.

The court found that the documents in question were indeed business records, as they were prepared in the regular course of business and contained representations. Furthermore, the printouts were considered to be reliable and accurate, as they were stored in a computer system and produced as part of the regular business operations. As a result, the court ruled that the printout of the payroll records should be admitted as evidence in the proceedings. This decision was based on the understanding that the documents met the necessary criteria for admissibility as business records. The court's ruling allowed the evidence to be considered in the case against Judith McAllister.

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.