R v Keech - [2002] VSCA 103

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 131 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
IAN NORMAN KEECH

---

JUDGES:	CALLAWAY and VINCENT, JJ.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 June 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 July 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 103

---

Criminal law – Obtaining financial advantage by deception – Financial advantage obtained in New South Wales but necessary documentation executed in Victoria – Whether “real and substantial link” with Victoria – Sentencing – Ill-health making service of prison sentence more difficult – Whether adequately taken into account – Crimes Act 1958, s.80A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan Q.C., D.P.P. Mr R.L. Gibson	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr J.W. Lee	Byrne & Clark

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

The applicant, who is now aged 49, was presented in the County Court on one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to the provisions of s.82 of the Crimes Act 1958. After a trial occupying nine days he was found guilty on that count. The maximum custodial penalty is 10 years' imprisonment. Following a plea for leniency on his behalf, the learned trial judge sentenced the applicant to 18 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eight months. His Honour directed that a copy of certain of the exhibits tendered on the plea were to accompany the applicant to prison and to be made available to the prison authorities and that the evidence of the applicant’s doctor given on the plea was to be transcribed and similarly provided.

Of the three grounds of appeal in the notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction, only one was argued, namely that the learned judge erred in law in deciding that the County Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.

Before turning to counsel’s submissions, I shall say something briefly about the circumstances of the offence. The applicant met the co-accused, Iain Ross Macdonald, in 1998 and became his financial adviser. They shared an interest in showing and photographing dogs. The applicant advised Macdonald to set up a photography business, which he did at the end of that year. A company, Proform Imaging Pty. Ltd. (“Proform”), was incorporated in early December and photographic equipment was purchased to the value of approximately $11,750. The directors of the company were Mr and Mrs Macdonald. The shareholders were Mrs Macdonald and Lanaken Kennels Pty. Ltd. The applicant and Macdonald were the signatories to Proform’s Bank of Melbourne account in Wangaratta.

The company rapidly ran into financial difficulties and needed more funds. Macdonald travelled to Sydney and together they met with a finance broker called Robert Knight. The applicant told Mr Knight that Proform needed photographic equipment, although he knew that Proform already had such equipment. The broker then prepared an application form to Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd. (“Esanda”) requesting lease finance or a hire purchase agreement to enable Proform to obtain photographic equipment from Tekcorp Specialist Coating…

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 Keech

Details

AGLC: R v Keech [2002] VSCA 103
Case: [2002] VSCA 103
Decision Date: 24 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Keech involved the defendant, Keech, who was convicted of obtaining financial advantage by deception. The deception occurred in New South Wales, but the necessary documentation to facilitate the fraud was executed in Victoria. This case reached the court for determination of whether there was a "real and substantial link" between the crime and Victoria, which would allow the Victorian court to have jurisdiction over the matter. Additionally, the court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, considering Keech's ill-health which made the service of a prison sentence more difficult.

The legal issues before the court involved the jurisdictional reach of Victoria in relation to the crime committed, and the appropriate sentencing approach in light of Keech's health conditions. The court had to assess whether the execution of necessary documentation in Victoria was sufficient to establish the required link for jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the impact of Keech's health on the sentencing, ensuring that his condition was adequately taken into account in accordance with the provisions of the Crimes Act 1958.

The court found that the execution of the necessary documentation in Victoria did establish a "real and substantial link" with the state, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Victorian court. Regarding sentencing, the court acknowledged Keech's ill-health but determined that it had already been adequately considered in the sentencing process. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were to confirm the defendant's conviction and sentence, with the jurisdictional and sentencing issues having been duly considered and resolved.

Orders