R v Tapatu - [2005] VSCA 256

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No. 249 of 2004
	v.
STEVEN TAPATU

---

JUDGES:	EAMES, NETTLE and ASHLEY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 October 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 November 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 256

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Opening an account in a false name – Forgery – Using a forged document – Possession, making and using a false document – Attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception – Unrepresented accused – Whether reasonable apprehension of bias or prejudice on part of trial judge – Whether charge unbalanced – Adequacy of directions- Joinder and severance of counts – Directions as to identification – Dock identification – Whether conduct of prosecutor unfair – Whether verdicts unreasonable and not supported by evidence – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S.C. Hillman, S.C.	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Applicant appeared in person

EAMES, J.A.:

On 21 September 2004 the applicant was convicted in the County Court, upon verdicts of a jury, for a series of Commonwealth and State offences. The Commonwealth offences were two counts of opening an account in a false name, one count of forgery, one count of using a forged document and one count of possessing a forged document. He was convicted of a further four offences under State law, being two counts of making a false document and two counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception.

The learned sentencing judge imposed a total effective sentence on the Commonwealth offences of six months’ imprisonment, but ordered that the applicant be released on a recognisance release order in the sum of $1,000 on the condition he be of good behaviour for two years. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of six months’ imprisonment on the State offences that sentence being wholly suspended for two years. No application for leave to appeal has been filed with respect to sentence.

The applicant first stood trial on a presentment containing 24 counts. His first trial was aborted after it was discovered that the informant knew one of the jurors. A second trial was aborted after the judge formed the conclusion that the presentment should be severed, the trial proceeding on only nine counts. A third trial commenced on 9 July 2004 and verdicts of guilty were returned on 14 July 2004.

The applicant, who was born in New Zealand but became an Australian citizen, is now in his fourth year of study towards a law/arts degree. He represented himself on the trials and on the application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The Crown case was that the applicant opened two accounts in a false name – “Seuena Wayne Stevens” - with the ANZ Bank at Airport West branch on 15 July 2002 and with the Commonwealth Bank at Gladstone Park on 18 July 2002. The purpose for opening these accounts was to deposit in them counterfeit cheques which the applicant had…

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 Tapatu

Details

AGLC: R v Tapatu [2005] VSCA 256
Case: [2005] VSCA 256
Decision Date: 4 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Tapatu, was convicted on five counts by a jury in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The charges related to opening a bank account in a false name, forgery, using a forged document, and attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. The appellant was unrepresented during the trial. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which considered several issues. These included whether the trial judge had a reasonable apprehension of bias or prejudice, whether the charge was unbalanced, the adequacy of the trial judge’s directions to the jury, the joinder and severance of counts, the directions regarding identification, the conduct of the prosecutor, and whether the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The court held that the trial judge was not biased or prejudiced and that the charge was not unbalanced. The court found that the directions given to the jury were adequate, and the joinder and severance of counts was appropriate. The court also held that the conduct of the prosecutor was fair and that the verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The court did not find any grounds to overturn the trial judge’s decision, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant’s convictions and sentences on all five counts remained in place.

Orders