Legal Research
Cases
R v Macleod

R v Macleod

Case [2001] NSWCCA 357 14 September 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2001) 39 ACSR 189
52 NSWLR 389
125 A Crim R 60

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Macleod [2001] NSWCCA 357

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60131/99

HEARING DATE(S): 6/6/01, 7/6/01, 8/06/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 September 2001

PARTIES :

Robert James MACLEOD - Appellant
REGINA - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Simpson J at 54; Newman AJ at 159

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/63

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Rummery DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr C Papayanni - Appellant
Mr T Game SC with Mr D Jordan - Crown

SOLICITORS: Ms Anita Betts - Appellant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Companies (NSW) Code ss 169, 570(1) - Corporations Law, ss 780, 232(6), - 101A(1) - 1064(1), 1311(1) - Securities Industry (NSW) Code, s 43 - Crimes Act 1901 (NSW), s 173 - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 5 - Corporations (NSW) Act 1990, s 8, s 13(2), Pt 8, s 55 - Corporations Act (Cth) 1989 s 82 - fraudulent intent - dishonesty - sufficiency of directions - claim of right - "prescribed interest" and "participation interest" pursuant to Companies (NSW) Code and Corporations Law - adequacy of directions as to relevant facts - what facts necessary to be averred in indictment - consciousness of guilt - directions as to - onus of proof - "directing mind of a company" - identity between directing mind of company - whether consensual transaction in transferring company's property - whether fraudulent - authority of Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) to prosecute charges laid under state legislation - jurisdiction of District Court of NSW to hear charges - knowingly concerned in offence (Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (s5) - offences against the law of the Commonwealth - application for leave to appeal against sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Securities Industry (NSW) Code
Corporations Law
Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) (NSW) Code
Corporations (New South Wales) Act 1990
Corporations Act 1989 (Cth)
Corporations (Western Australia) Act 1990 (WA)
Corporations (Commonwealth Authorities and Officers) Regulations
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Corporations Law (SA)
Corporations (SA) Act 1990

CASES CITED:
Tesco Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153
R v Roffel [1985] VR 511
R v Morris [1984] AC 320
R v Gomez [1993] AC 442
R v McHugh (1988) 88 Cr App R 385
Attorney-General's Reference (No.2 of 1982) [1984] QB 624
Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250
R v Lawrence [1972] AC 626
Maher (1986) 21 A Crim R 316
Durovic (1994) 71 A Crim R 33
Duke Group Ltd v Pilmer (1998) 144 FLR 1
R v Glenister [1980] 2 NSWLR 597
Attorney-General's Reference No.1 of 1985 (1985) 19 A Crim R 436
Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121
Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Vis (2000) 77 SASR 490
R v…

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 Macleod

Details

AGLC: R v Macleod [2001] NSWCCA 357
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 357
Decision Date: 14 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Macleod, the respondent was charged with multiple counts of fraudulent conduct related to his actions as a director of a company. The dispute centred around whether the respondent was criminally liable for offences under the Companies (NSW) Code, the Corporations Law, and the Securities Industry (NSW) Code, among others. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the respondent had the requisite fraudulent intent, whether the directions given to the jury were sufficient, and the interpretation of terms such as "prescribed interest" and "participation interest" as defined by the Companies (NSW) Code and the Corporations Law. Additionally, the court had to consider the adequacy of the directions concerning the relevant facts, the necessity of averring specific facts in the indictment, and the concept of consciousness of guilt. Another issue was whether the Director of Public Prosecutions had the authority to prosecute under state legislation and whether the District Court had jurisdiction over the charges. The court also needed to determine if the respondent was knowingly concerned in the offence as defined in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

The court held that the respondent's actions were not fraudulent, as there was no dishonest intent involved. The jury directions were deemed adequate, and the court found that the necessary facts had been averred in the indictment. The concept of consciousness of guilt was not required in this case. The Director of Public Prosecutions did have the authority to prosecute under the relevant state legislation, and the District Court had jurisdiction over the charges. The court found that the respondent was not knowingly concerned in the offence as defined in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Consequently, the charges were dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was denied.

Orders