R v Seyfarth - [1998] VSCA 27

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 41 of 1998

THE QUEEN

EDWARD DARRELL SEYFARTH

---

JUDGES:	BROOKING, TADGELL and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 August 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 August 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1998] VSCA 27

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Conviction - Conspiracy - Counterfeiting - Application to change
plea made after conviction recorded - Application refused - No miscarriage of justice.
R. v. Parsons, unreported, Court of Appeal, 24 October 1997, applied.
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Delay between arrest and conviction - Sentence within

range available - Applicant not punished for another offence - No bias.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr L. Lasry, Q.C. and	P.C. Wood
Mr M.P. Taft	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr D. Perkins	Kuek & Associates

BROOKING, J. A.:

I concur in the judgment of Buchanan, J.A.

TADGELL, J. A.:

I agree with Buchanan, J.A.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

The applicant and two other accused were presented in the County Court on two counts of conspiracy. One count alleged an agreement to make false American Express travellers cheques with the intention that they should be used to induce another to accept them as genuine. The other count alleged an agreement to use the counterfeit American Express travellers cheques with the same intention.
On 17 November 1997 the applicant and his co-accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The case that was opened to the jury was that Brian Frugtniet, a younger brother of the applicant, ran a travel agency business in Sydney. In October 1991 Frugtniet enlisted a graphic artist and a printer to make plates to enable American Express travellers cheques to be printed. Frugtniet also obtained the services of a computer consultant and a computer programmer to develop a computer program to run the printer and sequentially number the cheques. The computer program was completed and printing plates were made. The plant, consisting of a printer, a computer and an encoder and the raw material, the paper, were assembled in Melbourne. Cheques were printed over the period from 30 November 1991 to 3 December 1991. The total face value of counterfeit cheques eventually recovered by the police was in excess of $US2,800,000. The applicant did not participate in the printing of the travellers cheques: his responsibility was to establish a system for converting the cheques into cash. While the cheques were being printed, the applicant recruited persons to pass the cheques. The plan was to cash the cheques overseas. For that purpose passports in false names were acquired by the applicant. Shortly prior to his arrest an associate of the applicant cashed or attempted to cash some of the counterfeit travellers cheques at two banks in Melbourne while the applicant waited outside.
On 5 December 1991 the applicant and another man were arrested in Sydney. They had in their possession counterfeit American Express travellers cheques to the face value of $US15,000 and passports in false names.

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 Seyfarth

Details

AGLC: R v Seyfarth [1998] VSCA 27
Case: [1998] VSCA 27
Decision Date: 31 August 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Seyfarth, the respondent was convicted of conspiracy to counterfeit currency and counterfeiting currency itself. The conviction was appealed on the basis of an application to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, which was made after the conviction had been recorded. The respondent contended that this application should have been entertained, as it would have avoided a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge should have entertained the application and whether the sentence imposed was just and appropriate.

The court considered the legal principles surrounding the application to change a plea after conviction has been recorded. It noted that such applications are generally disfavored and should only be entertained if there is a clear miscarriage of justice. In this instance, the court found that the respondent had not demonstrated any circumstances that would justify entertaining the application. It was held that the respondent's delay in making the application, coupled with the lack of any exceptional circumstances, did not warrant setting aside the conviction. The court referred to the decision in R v Parsons, where similar principles were applied, to support its reasoning.

Furthermore, the court examined the sentence imposed on the respondent. It found that the delay between arrest and conviction did not influence the sentencing decision. The court held that the sentence was within the range available and did not constitute an additional punishment for the delay. The respondent's argument that the sentence reflected bias was rejected, as the court found no evidence to support such a claim. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute an error of law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The respondent was not granted leave to change his plea, and the original conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Orders