R v Zurek - [2002] NSWCCA 61

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R .v. ZUREK [2002] NSWCCA 61

FILE NUMBER(S):
60182/01

HEARING DATE(S): 7 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 07/03/2002

PARTIES:
Waldemar ZUREK - Appellant
Regina - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ Grove J Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/21/1147

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: O'Reilly QC DCJ

COUNSEL:
Appellant in person
Mr W.G. Dawe QC for the Crown

SOLICITORS:
Appellant in person
S.E. O'Connor for the Crown

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
See Judgment at Paragraph 25

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60182/01
Spigelman CJ
Grove J
Barr J
7 March 2002

regina .V. waldemar zurek

Judgment

SPIGELMAN CJ: I invite Barr J to deliver the first judgment.
BARR J: The applicant, Waldemar Zurek, seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against certain convictions recorded in the District Court and to seek leave to appeal against the sentences imposed. On 4 February 1999 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of assault. On 17 June 1999 O'Reilly QC DCJ sentenced the applicant on the wounding charge to imprisonment for five years and six months commencing on 9 February 1998, comprising a minimum term of two years six months and an additional term of three years. On each of the remaining counts his Honour sentenced the applicant to a fixed concurrent term of eighteen months' imprisonment. On 2 April 2001 the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against the sentences and a notice of an application for an extension of time within which to bring the application. On 22 May 2001 he filed a notice of appeal and an application for leave to appeal against the conviction and the sentences.
The applicant is the brother of Alicja Robinson. Their mother had died leaving a will and discussions took place between them about the distribution of the estate. They consulted a solicitor, Mr George West, who tendered certain advice. On 9 February 1998 the applicant attended at Mr West's office to keep an appointment. Mrs Robinson attended as well. Mr West had had previous communications with the applicant as a result of which he distrusted him. He therefore decided to tape-record the conference they were to have. Mr West told the applicant that he intended to make the recording and the conference started. The discussion became heated and the applicant took a spear gun out of his bag and pointed it at Mr West. Then he turned and fired it at Mrs Robinson, who was sitting next to him. The spear struck her on the head and she was injured. A struggle ensued during which Mrs Robinson, Mr West and two employees of the practice tried to subdue the applicant. All suffered injuries. The police were called and the applicant was arrested. They found three knives on his person. In his sports bag were…

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 Zurek

Details

AGLC: R v Zurek [2002] NSWCCA 61
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 61
Decision Date: 7 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Zurek, the appellant faced criminal charges in the Supreme Court of Victoria, related to allegations of fraud and deception. The prosecution alleged that the appellant engaged in a series of transactions intended to defraud several individuals out of substantial sums of money. The case revolved around whether the appellant had the requisite intent to deceive and whether his actions constituted the criminal offence of fraud under the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act 1958. The appellant contested the charges, maintaining his innocence and arguing that any transactions were legitimate business activities conducted in good faith.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had established the essential elements of the offence of fraud beyond reasonable doubt. The primary legal issue was whether the appellant had the necessary intent to deceive the victims. Additionally, the court had to consider the nature and extent of the appellant's actions and whether they amounted to fraud as defined by the statute. The defence argued that the transactions were not fraudulent but rather involved legitimate business dealings, and that the appellant did not harbour any deceptive intent.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards. It concluded that the prosecution had proven the appellant's intent to deceive and that his actions did indeed constitute the offence of fraud. The court found that the appellant's actions were deliberate and calculated to mislead the victims into parting with their money under false pretences. The evidence, including witness testimonies and documentary proof, was sufficient to establish the requisite intent and the fraudulent nature of the transactions. Therefore, the court found the appellant guilty of the charges.

The final orders of the court included a conviction on the charge of fraud and the imposition of a penalty as determined by the court. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court also considered the impact on the victims and the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal system in financial dealings.

Orders