R -v- MARGARIA [2003] WASCA 253
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 253 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 24/10/2003 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:51/2003 | 15 SEPTEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J PARKER J EM HEENAN J | 15/09/03 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Applications for leave to appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN JOHN GEOFFREY MARGARIA NABIL MICHEL SADEK |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Prosecution appeals Applications for leave to appeal Appeals from acquittal at trial before Judge alone Trial Judge upheld submission of no case to answer by each accused Indictments for fraud and attempted fraud Sections 409(1)(c), s 552, s 554 and s 688(2)(ba) of the Criminal Code Sufficiency of evidence to constitute a case to answer Turns on its own facts Applications for leave to appeal refused |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 409(1)(c), s 552, s 554, s 688(2)(ba) |
Case References: | Benson v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 520 Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213 Byrnes v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 1 Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21 Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wang [2003] HCA 11; (2003) 77 ALJR 786 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Udechuku [1982] WAR 21 Rohde v Director of Public Prosecutions (1986) 161 CLR 119 The Queen v Carroll [2002] HCA 55 Balcombe v De Simoni (1972) 126 CLR 576 In Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728 Infirri v The Queen (1981) 5 A Crim R 133 Lewis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 1 Matthews v The Queen (2001) 24 WAR 438 Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482 R v Cooper [1877] 2 QBD 510 R v English (1872) 12 Cox 171 R v Gibson (1929) 30 SR (NSW) 282 R v Kuff [1962] VR 578 R v Lince (1873) 12 Cox 451 R v Lorkin (1995) 15 WAR 499 R v Olan & Ors (1978) 41 CCC (2nd) 145 R v Rechichi [1999] WASC 221 R v Theroux (1993) 100 DLR (4th) 624 R v Turner [2001] WASCA 344 Schokker v The Queen [2001] WASCA 84 Waterhouse v Pas (1998) 103 A Crim R 511 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- MARGARIA [2003] WASCA 253 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- PARKER J
EM HEENAN J
PUBLISHED : 24 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 51 of 2003 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
- Applicant
AND
JOHN GEOFFREY MARGARIA
Respondent
- Applicant
AND
NABIL MICHEL SADEK
Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Prosecution appeals - Applications for leave to appeal - Appeals from acquittal at trial before Judge alone - Trial Judge upheld submission of no case to answer by each…
Continue reading R v Margaria
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Margaria [2003] WASCA 253
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 253
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, who were acquitted by a trial judge sitting alone, appealed against their acquittal on charges of fraud and attempted fraud. They sought leave to appeal the trial judge's decision to uphold the submission that there was no case to answer. The charges arose from allegations that the applicants had defrauded a person of the sum of $1,600,000 by means of false representations. The applicants were charged under sections 409(1)(c), 552, 554 and 688(2)(ba) of the Criminal Code. The appeal centred on the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a case to answer.
The applicants submitted that the trial judge had erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. They argued that the evidence demonstrated that they had intended to defraud the complainant and had taken steps to execute the fraud. The Crown contended that the trial judge had correctly concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. The Crown submitted that the applicants had failed to establish the requisite mens rea and that the evidence did not support the inference of an intention to defraud. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's conclusion was open to him or her on the evidence.
The court found that the trial judge had correctly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. The evidence did not establish the requisite mens rea, and the applicants had failed to prove their intention to defraud. The court held that the trial judge's conclusion was open to him or her on the evidence and that the applications for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The court found that the evidence did not support the inference of an intention to defraud and that the applicants had not established the necessary elements of the offences charged.
The court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal. The applicants' convictions were upheld, and the trial judge's decision was affirmed. The court found that the evidence did not support a conviction and that the trial judge's conclusion was open to him or her on the evidence. The court held that the applicants had failed to establish the necessary elements of the offences charged and that the trial judge had correctly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.
The applicants submitted that the trial judge had erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. They argued that the evidence demonstrated that they had intended to defraud the complainant and had taken steps to execute the fraud. The Crown contended that the trial judge had correctly concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. The Crown submitted that the applicants had failed to establish the requisite mens rea and that the evidence did not support the inference of an intention to defraud. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's conclusion was open to him or her on the evidence.
The court found that the trial judge had correctly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. The evidence did not establish the requisite mens rea, and the applicants had failed to prove their intention to defraud. The court held that the trial judge's conclusion was open to him or her on the evidence and that the applications for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The court found that the evidence did not support the inference of an intention to defraud and that the applicants had not established the necessary elements of the offences charged.
The court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal. The applicants' convictions were upheld, and the trial judge's decision was affirmed. The court found that the evidence did not support a conviction and that the trial judge's conclusion was open to him or her on the evidence. The court held that the applicants had failed to establish the necessary elements of the offences charged and that the trial judge had correctly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
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.