CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – reservation of a point of law – counts – duplicity and latent ambiguity – whether single count can allege obtaining amount exceeding $100,000 over a period of time as a circumstance of aggravation

STATUTES – Interpretation – words expressed in singular to be construed as including plural – Interpretation Act (NT) s 24

LEGISLATION:
Acts Interpretation Act (1954) (QLD)
Criminal Code (NT) s 1, s 210(2), s 303, s 305, s 310, s 310(2), s 408
Criminal Code (QLD) s 398(1), s 398(2), s 398(9), s 568(1)
Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA) s 137, s 194, s 195
Interpretation Act (NT) s 24, s 24(2)(a)
Justices Act (NT) s 120
Larceny Act 1861 (UK) (24 and 25 Vict c96) s 6, s 71
Theft Act 1968 (UK)

CITATIONS:
Applied
R v Moussad (1999) 152 FLR 373
Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77

Distinguished
R v Ruddell (2006) 1 Qd R 361

Referred to
AM v The Queen (2006) 18 NTLR 110; [2006] NTCCA 18
Birkeland-Corro v Tudor-Stack (2005) 15 NTLR 208
Blue Metal Industries Ltd v Dilley (1969) 117 CLR 651
DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584
Hoessinger v The Queen (1992) 107 FLR 99; (1992) 62 A Crim R 146
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Megson v The Queen [2006] NTSC 15
R v Ballysingh (1953) 37 Cr App R 28
R v Bleasdale (1848) 2 Car & K 765; 175 ER 321
R v Firth (1869) 11 Cox 234
R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 314
R v Lawson (1952) 36 Cr App R 30
R v Richard John Scott SCC 20326807 delivered on 23 August 2005
R v Shepherd (1868) 11 Cox 119
R v Tania Lee Weinert SCC 20326339 delivered on 6 July 2004
R v Tomlin (1954) 38 Cr App R 82
R v Tyson [2005] NTCCA 9
R v Wilson (1979) 69 Cr App R 83
Sanby v The Queen (1993) 117 FLR 218
The Queen v Balls (1871) LR 1 CCR 328
The Queen v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849
Tuck v The Queen (1993) 117 A Crim R 305

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Crown: R Coates & N Rogers
Accused: J Tippett QC

Solicitors:
Crown: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: NT Legal Aid Commission

Judgment category classification: B
Number of pages: 18

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

The Queen v Poulier [2007] NTCCA 04
No. CA 25 of 2006 (20504184)

IN THE MATTER OF S 408 OF…

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 Poulier

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Poulier [2007] NTCCA 4
Case: [2007] NTCCA 4
Decision Date: 28 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal considered a point of law reserved by the Crown concerning the indictment of the respondent, R v Poulier. The dispute arose from charges laid against the respondent, which the Crown sought to frame in a manner that the respondent argued was legally impermissible.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether a single count in an indictment could allege the obtaining of an amount exceeding $100,000 over a period of time as a circumstance of aggravation. This question involved the interpretation of provisions within the Criminal Code (NT) and the application of general principles of statutory interpretation, specifically regarding the singular and plural forms of words.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principle that words expressed in the singular are to be construed as including the plural, as provided by section 24 of the Interpretation Act (NT). Applying this principle, the Court determined that the singular term "amount" in the relevant charging provisions could encompass multiple instances or a cumulative sum of money obtained over time. This interpretation allowed for a single count to aggregate various instances of offending behaviour to establish a higher value, thereby constituting a circumstance of aggravation. The Court found that this approach was consistent with the legislative intent to allow for the efficient and effective prosecution of complex financial crimes.

The Court concluded that the answer to the reserved question was "Yes," meaning that a single count could indeed allege the obtaining of an amount exceeding $100,000 over a period of time as a circumstance of aggravation.

Orders

Orders of the court

I have concluded that the answer to the question is "Yes".

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

The Queen v Poulier [2007] NTCCA 4

Most Recent Citation

Jones v Chief of Navy [2012] ADFDAT 2

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Galton v McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd
[2013] NTMC 7

…Ltd [2005] 139 LGERA 449; Tyson v The Queen (2005) 16 NTLR 161; Haskett v Police (2005) SASC 174; AM v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 558; R v Poulier (2007) 19 NTLR 91 Rixon v Thompson (2009) 195 A Crim R 110; Wakool SC v Garrison Cattle Feeders (2010) 177 LGERA 282; Kirk v Industrial Court (2010) 239 CLR 231.…
Jones v Chief of Navy
[2012] ADFDAT 2 Para 28

…money or goods have been appropriated on multiple occasions or assault cases where a number of blows have been struck: see, for example, R v Poulier (2007) 19 NTLR 91; Haskett v Police [2005] SASC 174; Sims v Drewson (2008) 188 A Crim R 445.…
R v B
[2008] NSWCCA 85

…ussad [1999] NSWCCA 337; (1999) 152 FLR 373 R v Ongley (1940) 57 WN (NSW) 116 R v Orban [2005] NSWCCA 312 R v Poulier [2007] NTCCA 4; (2007) 19 NTLR 91 R v Ruddell [2006] 1 Qd R 361 R v Taylor [2003] NSWCCA 194 R v Wyles; Ex parte Attorney-General [1977] Qd R 169 R v Zampogna [2003] SASC 75; (2003) 85 SASR 56 Rom…
Adamson v O'Brien
[2008] NTSC 8 Para 23

…In R v Poulier [2007] 19 NTLR 91, Mildren J, with whose judgment I agreed, identified two lines of authority in the United Kingdom where judicial approval had been given to “charging one appropriation of property in one count where the evidence led at trial disclosed that the property had been, or might have…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

R v Greenfield
[2023] NSWSC 1386

…) 38 Cr App R 82 R v Tyson [2005] NTCCA 9 R v Wilson (1979) 69 Cr App R 83 Sanby v The Queen (1993) 117 FLR 218 The Queen v Balls (1871) LR 1 CCR 328 The Queen v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849 Tuck v The Queen (1993) 117 A Crim R 305…
R v Lawson
[2021] NSWDC 245

…could be charged with embezzling the total amount not accounted for, even if the individual sums embezzled could have been charged and proved. In R v Lawson (1952) 36 Cr App R 30, Linskey J held that it is proper to allege a general deficiency if one can prove that there was a fraudulent conversion of either the who…
AM v The Queen
[2006] NTCCA 18

…Referred to AM v The Queen (2006) 18 NTLR 110; [2006] NTCCA 18 Birkeland-Corro v Tudor-Stack (2005) 15 NTLR 208 Blue Metal Industries Ltd v Dilley (1969) 117 CLR 651 DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584 Hoessinger v The Queen (1992) 107 FLR 99; (1992) 62 A Crim R 146 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Megson v The Queen […
Megson v The Queen
[2006] NTSC 15

…1 DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584 Hoessinger v The Queen (1992) 107 FLR 99; (1992) 62 A Crim R 146 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Megson v The Queen [2006] NTSC 15 R v Ballysingh (1953) 37 Cr App R 28 R v Bleasdale (1848) 2 Car & K 765; 175 ER 321 R v Firth (1869) 11 Cox 234 R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 314 R v…
Tyson v The Queen
[2005] NTCCA 9

…23 August 2005 R v Shepherd (1868) 11 Cox 119 R v Tania Lee Weinert SCC 20326339 delivered on 6 July 2004 R v Tomlin (1954) 38 Cr App R 82 R v Tyson [2005] NTCCA 9 R v Wilson (1979) 69 Cr App R 83 Sanby v The Queen (1993) 117 FLR 218 The Queen v Balls (1871) LR 1 CCR 328 The Queen v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R…
Birkeland-Corro v Tudor-Stack
[2005] NTSC 23

…Referred to AM v The Queen (2006) 18 NTLR 110; [2006] NTCCA 18 Birkeland-Corro v Tudor-Stack (2005) 15 NTLR 208 Blue Metal Industries Ltd v Dilley (1969) 117 CLR 651 DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584 Hoessinger v The Queen (1992) 107 FLR 99; (1992) 62 A Crim R 146 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Megson v The Queen [2006] NTSC 15 R v Bal…
Tuck v The Queen
[1999] TASSC 135

…Wilson (1979) 69 Cr App R 83 Sanby v The Queen (1993) 117 FLR 218 The Queen v Balls (1871) LR 1 CCR 328 The Queen v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849 Tuck v The Queen (1993) 117 A Crim R 305…
R v Moussad
[1999] NSWCCA 337

…CITATIONS: Applied R v Moussad (1999) 152 FLR 373 Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77…
Walsh v Tattersall
[1996] HCA 26

…CITATIONS: Applied R v Moussad (1999) 152 FLR 373 Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77…
Blue Metal Industries Ltd v Dilley
[1969] UKPCHCA 2

…Referred to AM v The Queen (2006) 18 NTLR 110; [2006] NTCCA 18 Birkeland-Corro v Tudor-Stack (2005) 15 NTLR 208 Blue Metal Industries Ltd v Dilley (1969) 117 CLR 651 DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584 Hoessinger v The Queen (1992) 107 FLR 99; (1992) 62 A Crim R 146 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Megson v The Queen [200…
Johnson v Miller
[1937] HCA 77

…stries Ltd v Dilley (1969) 117 CLR 651 DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584 Hoessinger v The Queen (1992) 107 FLR 99; (1992) 62 A Crim R 146 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Megson v The Queen [2006] NTSC 15 R v Ballysingh (1953) 37 Cr App R 28 R v Bleasdale (1848) 2 Car & K 765; 175 ER 321 R v Firth (1869) 11 Cox 234 R v…
The Queen v Poulier
[2007] NTCCA 04

…The Queen v Poulier [2007] NTCCA 04…
[1973] AC 584
[1973] AC 584

…6) 18 NTLR 110; [2006] NTCCA 18 Birkeland-Corro v Tudor-Stack (2005) 15 NTLR 208 Blue Metal Industries Ltd v Dilley (1969) 117 CLR 651 DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584 Hoessinger v The Queen (1992) 107 FLR 99; (1992) 62 A Crim R 146 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Megson v The Queen [2006] NTSC 15 R v Ballysingh…
Johnson v Miller
175 ER 321

…m R 146 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Megson v The Queen [2006] NTSC 15 R v Ballysingh (1953) 37 Cr App R 28 R v Bleasdale (1848) 2 Car & K 765; 175 ER 321 R v Firth (1869) 11 Cox 234 R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 314 R v Lawson (1952) 36 Cr App R 30 R v Richard John Scott SCC 20326807 delivered on 23 Aug…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Larceny Act 1861 (UK)
6 2 mentions
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
1 mention
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
1 mention
National Bank of Australasia Ltd v Scottish Union & National Insurance Co
1 mention
Theft Act 1968 c.60
1 mention