Legal Research
Cases
R v Vasic

R v Vasic

Case [2005] VSCA 38 2 March 2005

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Obtaining financial advantage by deception

Tendering valueless cheque

No case submission

Plea of guilty

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 235 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
DALIBOR VASIC

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT and NETTLE, JJ.A. and CUMMINS, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 March 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 March 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 38

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Obtaining financial advantage by deception – Tendering valueless cheque in pretended payment of existing obligation – No case submission made – Subsequent plea of guilty – Crimes Act 1958 s.82, 82(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Mr. S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr T. F. Danos	C. Marshall & Associates

VINCENT, J.A.:

I will invite Nettle, J.A. to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

NETTLE, J.A.:

This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction on one count of obtaining financial advantage by deception contrary to s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958.

At relevant times the applicant was a self employed plasterer. In June 2000 he established a credit account with a plasterboard supplier called Itizideal Pty Ltd and between 13 June 2000 and 21 July 2000 he made fifteen purchases of plasterboard and associated products on credit at prices totalling $32,701.23. Early in August 2000 the manager of Itizideal Pty Ltd, Mr Ian Williams, made a number of telephone calls to the applicant seeking payment of the account. The applicant was financially embarrassed and he attempted to play for time. Eventually, however, he told Mr Williams that he would leave a cheque in his letter box for Mr Williams to collect. On 8 August 2000 Mr Williams collected the cheque from the letterbox as agreed. It was drawn on National Australia Bank account No. 67506 7430 in the name of “DV Plastering, D. Vasic, T/A” payable to Itizideal Pty Ltd in the amount of $32,701.23. But it was dishonoured on presentation for payment. Account No. 67506 7430 had been closed some years before.

On 15 August 2000 Mr Williams had the applicant sign a document in which he acknowledged that the debt was due, and admitted that he had offered the dishonoured cheque knowing that the bank account had been closed, and he also undertook to pay part of the amount owing by 18 August 2000 with the remainder to be paid by 31 August 2000. But the applicant did not honour the terms of that undertaking or otherwise pay the debt, and the police were later informed.

On 18 August 2003 the applicant was arraigned before Judge Davey in the County Court at Melbourne on the one count of dishonestly obtaining financial

advantage by the deferment of a debt[1] by deception by falsely representing that the cheque was a good and valid order for the payment of $32,701.23. He pleaded not guilty and following the presentation of the Crown case his counsel submitted that there was no case to answer. That submission was based on the judgment of Miles, C.J. of the Supreme…

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 Vasic

Details

AGLC: R v Vasic [2005] VSCA 38
Case: [2005] VSCA 38
Decision Date: 2 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vasic involved the defendant, Vasic, who was charged with obtaining financial advantage by deception, a serious criminal offence under the Crimes Act 1958. The incident in question centred around Vasic's act of tendering a valueless cheque in a deceitful attempt to settle an existing financial obligation. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction, where the defendant's actions were scrutinized and evaluated against the legal standards set forth in the Act.

The central legal issue the court needed to resolve was whether Vasic's actions constituted the crime of obtaining financial advantage by deception, and if so, the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court had to examine the specific provisions of the Crimes Act 1958, particularly sections 82 and 82(1), to determine if the criteria for the offence were met. Additionally, the court needed to consider the absence of a no case submission by the prosecution and the subsequent guilty plea entered by Vasic, which influenced the sentencing process.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously analysed the elements of the offence as defined in the Crimes Act 1958. It found that the act of presenting a valueless cheque with the intention to deceive and obtain a financial advantage clearly fell within the scope of the statutory provisions. The court also took into account the guilty plea and the absence of a no case submission, which indicated a degree of culpability and a recognition by the defendant of the wrongful nature of his actions. Based on these factors, the court sentenced Vasic in accordance with the law, ensuring that the punishment was commensurate with the severity of the offence.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence on Vasic for the offence of obtaining financial advantage by deception. The specifics of the sentence were not detailed in the text, but it was clear that the court had considered all relevant legal principles and the circumstances of the case in reaching its decision.

Orders