R v Wall

Case [2002] NSWCCA 42 2 April 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60528/01; 60679/01

HEARING DATE(S): 22/2/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 April 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Peter Vincent Wall

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Bell J at 93

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0010

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Acting Judge Stewart

COUNSEL : R F Sutherland SC (Crown)
J Ireland QC with P J D Hamill

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
P Moloney

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against sentence - appeal against conviction out of time - false and misleading statements - Corporations Law - lease with Council - false assertion of compliance with prerequisite allotment of shares.

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001
Corporations Law
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Ashbury v Reid (1961) WAR 49
Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257
Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky [2001] NSWCCA 332
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Kennedy v Sykes (1992) 24 ATR 546
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227
Pereira v DPP (1988) 63 ALJR 1
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
Regina v Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35
Regina v Brehoi [1999] NSWCCA 113
R v Buckett (1995) 7 A Crim R 302
R v Giam (1999) 104 A Crim R 416
R v Haddad (1988) 33 A Crim R 400
R v Hannes [2000] NSWCCA 503
R v Holder and Johnston (1983) 3 NSWLR 245
Regina v KCH [2001] NSWCCA 273
Regina v Lawrence [1980] 1 NSWLR 122
Regina v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Regina v Natesan and Subramaniam (1996) 88 A Crim R 444
R v Nifadopoulos (1988) 36 A Crim R 137
R v O'Donahue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397
R v Papazis (1991) 51 A Crim R 242
R v Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446
R v Phil Kim Phieu Lam (1990) 46 A Crim R 402
Regina v Ross NSWCCA 20 April 1994
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
Regina v Tannous (1987) 10 NSWLR 303
R v Young [1999] NSWCCA 275
Spies v The Queen (2000) HCA 43
Thorneloe v Filipowski [2001] NSWCCA 213
Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661
Wong and Leung v The Queen (2001) 76 ALJR 79

DECISION: Application to extend the time to file an appeal against conviction dismissed; Crown appeal allowed; Orders made by lower Court quashed; Respondent sentenced to community service for 300 hours.

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 Wall

Details

AGLC: R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 42
Decision Date: 2 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wall, the respondent, Andrew Wall, appealed against his conviction and sentence for providing false and misleading statements in relation to a lease with a local council. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal against the sentence was valid, considering that the appeal against the conviction was deemed out of time. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the false statements made by Wall amounted to an offence under the Corporations Law, specifically regarding the assertion of compliance with the prerequisite allotment of shares.

The court considered whether the appeal against the sentence could proceed despite the appeal against the conviction being out of time. It was established that the appeal against the conviction was indeed out of time, as it was lodged beyond the prescribed period. However, the court recognised that an appeal against sentence could still be valid if it raised a substantial question of law. The court also examined whether the false statements made by Wall constituted an offence under the Corporations Law, as he had asserted compliance with the prerequisite allotment of shares in the lease with the council. This involved scrutinising the intent behind the statements and whether they were made knowingly and dishonestly.

The court held that the appeal against the sentence was valid as it raised a substantial question of law. The court found that the false statements made by Wall did amount to an offence under the Corporations Law, as he had knowingly and dishonestly asserted compliance with the prerequisite allotment of shares. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the case was remitted to a lower court for resentencing. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was upheld, and the matter was to be resentenced by a lower court.

Orders