ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF Criminal Law-Conspiracy to cheat and defraud-False pretences-Form of indictment H. C. OF
- -Determinable by Crown-Overt actsParticulars-Values-Evidence-Direc tions to Jury-Verdict of guilty-Appeal to Court of Criminal Appeal-Two accused, appeal by one only--Appellant's conviction quashed-Verdic of acquittal entered-Other accused released by Crown-As to him no further action proposed April 29,30; -Appeal by Crown to High Court-Competency-Determination-New trial warranted, but, in circumstances, not ordered-Crimes Act 1900 (N.S. W.) (No. 40 of 1900), sec. 393-Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.) (No. 16 of 1912), sec. 6 (2).
1. Every kind and description of fraudulent statement, conduct, trick or device by which a party may be induced to part with his property for less than its value or to give more than its worth for the property of another falls within the description of fraud necessary to make criminal a combination to cheat
2. A false pretence may suffice to satisfy a charge of conspiracy though the pretence is such that making it would not constitute the statutory crime of false pretences.
3. It is for the Crown to determine what form a prosecution shall take and for the Court to determine whether the charge made has been supported.
4. The Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.), sec. 393, provides that it is not necessary to state any overt act in an indictment for conspiracy but the Court may order such particulars to be given as to the Court may seem meet:
Held, that it is the duty of the Court trying the indictment to direct precise particulars of the acts relied upon by the Crown to establish the conspiracy charged.
R. v. Partridge, (1930) 30 S.R. (N.S.W.) 410, approved.
5. The Court of Criminal Appeal directed, pursuant to sec. 6 (2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.), that a conviction for conspiracy against an appellant to that Court be quashed
Held, that such a judgment and verdict is the determination of a Court of law and not of a jury, and is subject to the appellate power of the High Court.
R. v. Snow, (1917) 23 C.L.R. 256, at p. 261; (1918) 25 C.L.R. 377, followed: R. v. Snow, (1915) 20 C.L.R. 315, at p. 363, distinguished.
Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (N.S.W.), R. v. Wearer, (1931) 31 S.R. (N.S.W.) 403, in view of the particular circumstances of the case,
APPEAL from the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.
George Lynne Weaver and William Clarke Stevens were tried on 24th November 1930 and succeeding days, at the Court of Quarter Sessions, Gundagai, on an indictment in which they were charged that on and after 16th April 1926 at Jugiong and other places in New South Wales they "did amongst themselves with each other and with divers other persons conspire to cheat and defraud Francis Thomas Coggan and divers other persons of divers large sums of money." Particulars of the overt acts relied upon…
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 Weaver
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Weaver [1931] HCA 23
Case
[1931] HCA 23
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The original trial concerned George Lynne Weaver and William Clarke Stevens, who were charged with conspiring to cheat and defraud. Following their conviction, Weaver appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which quashed his conviction and ordered an acquittal. The Attorney-General for New South Wales then appealed to the High Court.
The legal issues before the High Court included the competency of the Crown's appeal following the Court of Criminal Appeal's order for acquittal, the adequacy of the particulars provided for the conspiracy charge, and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient. Specifically, the court considered whether a conspiracy charge could be sustained if the underlying acts might not individually constitute the statutory crime of false pretences, and the extent to which a trial judge must direct a jury on the precise factual elements of a conspiracy charge.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that while the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment was subject to appeal, the trial itself had miscarried. The court noted that the particulars provided for the conspiracy charge were inadequate and that the trial judge's summing-up was imperfect, failing to clearly delineate the issues for the jury. The court affirmed that a conspiracy to cheat and defraud encompasses fraudulent statements, conduct, tricks, or devices that induce a party to part with property for less than its value or to give more than its worth. However, the specific circumstances of the summing-up and the particulars provided meant the conviction could not stand.
Although the High Court dismissed the Crown's appeal, it did so on the basis that the trial had miscarried due to deficiencies in the particulars and the summing-up, rather than agreeing with the specific reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The court affirmed that a conspiracy charge is legally permissible even if the underlying acts might not individually constitute a statutory crime, provided the combination amounts to cheating and defrauding.