LEE, Mervyn Robin JANSEN, Cornelius Marinus COULSTON, Daren Te Ariki Charles TEDESCO, Antonio
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA JURISDICTION: ORIGINAL FILE NO/S: 320/2000 DELIVERED ON: 4 May 2001 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATES: 26 - 30 March, 26, 27 April 2001 JUDGMENT OF: Blow J CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Particular offences - Offences against the Government - Other offences - Conspiracy to defraud Commonwealth or public authority under Commonwealth - Deflection of public officers from public duty.
Counsel: Crown: M Rozenes QC, K E Read and J Read First Accused: M L Abbott QC and W P Boucault Second Accused: B R McTaggart Third Accused: J D Edwardson Fourth Accused: B J Powell QC Fifth Accused: C J Kourakis QC and J M Fuller Solicitors: Crown: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions First Accused:Jennings Elliott as agents for: Iles Selley Second Accused: Jennings Elliott Third Accused: Jennings Elliott as agents for: John Lister Fourth Accused: Jennings Elliott as agents for: Coates PL Fifth Accused:Jennings Elliott as agents for: Lynch & Meyer
Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 51 Number of Paragraphs: 93
Serial No 51/2001 File No 320/2000
THE QUEEN v PHILLIP BRUCE TURNER, MERVYN ROBIN LEE, CORNELIUS MARINUS JANSEN, DAREN TE ARIKI CHARLES COULSTON and ANTONIO TEDESCO (No 4)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J
4 May 2001
The five accused have been jointly charged with a single count of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority ("AFMA"), an authority under the Commonwealth, contrary to the Crimes Act1914 (Cth), s86A. Although it is not envisaged that a jury will be empanelled until later this year, the accused were all called upon to plead on 26 March 2001,…
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 Turner (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Turner (No 4) [2001] TASSC 51
Case
[2001] TASSC 51
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In R v Turner (No 4), five individuals were charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. The accused challenged the validity of the indictment and the search warrants used to obtain evidence against them. The Supreme Court of Tasmania, in a detailed judgment, rejected the accused's arguments. The court held that the indictment properly disclosed an offence under the Crimes Act, as the intent to defraud could be established without necessarily causing economic loss. The court further found that eight of the search warrants issued under the repealed Fisheries Act 1952 were invalid due to the act's repeal and the invalidity of the underlying licences. However, the warrants issued under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 were deemed valid, despite some technical discrepancies. Lastly, the warrants issued in New Zealand under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were found valid despite some inaccuracies in the description of the offences.