R v Scott - [1997] QCA 300

[1997] QCA 300

COURT OF APPEAL
MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA

BYRNE J

CA No 164 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

ALLAN CHARLES SCOTT	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 21/07/97
JUDGMENT
210797 T10/JJD24 M/T COA152/97

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: We are concerned with an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted and sentenced on

9 April this year. There were eight counts involved in the indictment, of making false entries in documents with intent to defraud.

Two different companies were involved in the events and in respect of one of the counts, the appellant was charged as a servant when he made the relevant entry and in seven more cases, he was charged in his capacity as a director of a different company. The total amount that was involved in the false entries was a sum in excess of $48,000.

The offences occurred in the period between December 1992 and November 1994. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and been found guilty on all counts after a trial. The notice of appeal, as originally drawn, made brief and very general points, but subsequently, an amended notice of grounds of appeal was put before the Court and notice of it given to the respondent.

What the Court has done so far is to hear argument on the basis set out in the amended grounds of appeal, but has not formally given leave to amend in accordance with them. Argument has, however, not been restricted. The points that were argued under all of the counts differed of course in the

detail to which they refer, but the real issue at trial which became then a topic referred to on the appeal was the element of intent to defraud. The defence, which was run below, was that there was no intent to defraud in the various actions that the

2 JUDGMENT

210797 T10/JJD24 M/T COA152/97

Crown was able to point to, but that defence was rejected by the jury's findings.

The questions involved were concerned with the appellant's authority and justification for making the entries in question which resulted in the several sums, the subject of those entries, being passed out of the control of the two different companies involved. Payments were made either to the appellant for his direct purposes or perhaps not quite directly but as he determined and for what could be called his benefit or at least as he chose.

In respect of the false entries, the appellant was responsible for incorrect descriptions of the reasons entered in the company's accounts for making the drawings that resulted from them. There was a claim at trial put forward on his behalf that he was entitled to draw or deal with the amounts concerned, because of the terms of his agreed remuneration package that applied in some instance or instances or because the resultant drawings following the entries provided for payments to be made to meet the company's own business liabilities. In fact the jury was…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [1997] QCA 300
Case: [1997] QCA 300
Decision Date: 21/07/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Scott involves the appellant, Allan Charles Scott, who was convicted and sentenced on eight counts of making false entries in documents with intent to defraud. The appellant, both as a servant and a director of two companies, was found to have made false entries that resulted in over $48,000 being passed out of the control of the companies involved. The appellant argued that there was no intent to defraud and that the false entries were justified by his agreed remuneration package or were made to meet the companies' business liabilities. The jury, however, rejected this defence.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centered on the admissibility of certain evidence and the balance of the summing-up during the trial. The appellant argued that prejudicial evidence was admitted without objection and that the summing-up did not adequately address the appellant's defence. The Court found that the evidence in question was properly admitted and relevant to the intent to defraud, and that the summing-up sufficiently covered the appellant's defence. The Court concluded that the trial was conducted fairly and without miscarriage of justice.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused. The Court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and that the appellant's failure to present certain financial information to the sentencing Judge did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The orders of the Court were to dismiss the appeal and to refuse leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders