R v Woodward - [2020] QDC 254

[2020] QDC 254

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Copyright in this transcript is vested in the State of Queensland (Department of Justice & Attorney-General). Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Executive Manager, Support Services, Queensland Courts.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
JUDGE DEARDEN
Indictment No 7069 of 2019
THE QUEEN
v.
JENNIFER ELIZABETH WOODWARD
BRISBANE
9.59 AM, WEDNESDAY, 12 AUGUST 2020
JUDGMENT

Any Rulings that may be included in this transcript, may be extracted and subject to revision by the Presiding Judge.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

HIS HONOUR: The defendant, Jennifer Elizabeth Woodward, is charged with one count of fraud as an employee to the value of at least $100,000 (indictment 2493/19) in the following terms:

That was an employee of Levanta Pty Ltd and the yield to Jennifer Elizabeth Woodward from the dishonesty is of the value of at least $100,000.

The trial before me was conducted as a judge only trial pursuant to an order made by Judge Devereaux on 12 June 2020.

The defendant pleaded not guilty before me on 22 June 2020.

Elements

In respect of the charge the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:

(a) That the defendant obtained property from any person;
“obtain” includes to get, gain, receive or acquire in any way:

(b) The action of the defendant must have been done dishonestly;
to prove the defendant acted dishonestly the prosecution must prove that what the defendant did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people.

(d) The yield to the defendant was of the value of at least $100,000.

Particulars

The particulars tendered in the trial (exhibit A) are as follows:-

1. The defendant, Jennifer Woodward, obtained the sum of money, namely, $134,810.94.

2. The money was dishonestly obtained by the defendant amending or causing to be amended the payment information of Aircare Engineering Pty Ltd in the MYOB database of Levanta Pty Ltd.

3. The defendant, Jennifer Woodward, was an employee of Levanta Pty Ltd.

4. The defendant did not have permission from Levanta Pty Ltd to change the payment details for Aircare Engineering Pty Ltd.

Principles

In respect of the principles to be applied in a judge only trial, I refer to and respectfully adopt the exposition of those principles set out by Smith DCJA in R v MMH [2020] QDC 70, [7] – [10], supported by the cases and legislation cited in those paragraphs of his Honour’s judgment.

Evidence

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 Woodward

Details

AGLC: R v Woodward [2020] QDC 254
Case: [2020] QDC 254
Decision Date: 12 AUGUST 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jennifer Elizabeth Woodward is charged with one count of fraud as an employee to the value of at least $100,000, as she was an employee of Levanta Pty Ltd and obtained a sum of $134,810.94 from Levanta Pty Ltd. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted dishonestly to obtain the money. The defence raised the issue of whether someone else could have altered the bank account details, which could provide an innocent explanation for the change.

The court considered the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution and the lack of an audit trail due to the absence of an audit function in the MYOB EXO software at the relevant time. While the transaction was suspicious, the court could not be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for changing the bank account details. Therefore, the court found the defendant not guilty of fraud as an employee to the value of at least $100,000.

The court ordered that the exhibits be returned to the Crown and discharged the defendant.

Orders