Re Burstall, James Evan Robert

[1978] FCA 13

No-. NSW 4 6 6 of 1 9 7 0

I n t h e matter of -

THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1956

And i n t h e matter of -

AN INFORJ'ATION RE -

JAMES EVAN ROBXRT DURSTALL

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: M r . Jus t ice R i l e y

DATE OF OR3ER:	1 4 March 1978
WHERE FADE :	Sydney
THE C0UF.T ORDERS:

1. Tha t t he de fendan t be conv ic t ed o f t he o f f ence c ! l a rged .

W

2. That , upon t h e d e f e n d a n t g i v i n g s e c u r i t y i n h i s own

. recognizance l n t h e sum of $500 t o b e of good

b o h a v l o u r f o r t h e p e r l o d of two y e a r s f r o m t h e d a t e

of t h i s o r d e r , h e b e r e l e a s e d w i t h o u t a n y sentence

be ing passed upon him i n r e spec t o f t he cha rge ; and

c h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r D e f o r e t h e R e g i s t r a r , a t a

time and p l a c e t o b e f i x e d b y t h e R e g i s t r a r , f o r t h e

purpose of g iv ing such recognlzance .

.

Bankruptcy - Offence - O m i t t i n g m a t e r i a l p a r t i c u l a r

from s t a t e m e n t r e l a t i n g t o a f f a i r s - Bankruptcy A c t

1 9 6 6 , S. 265(l) ( f ) .

.

FU3ASONS FOX JUDG:.iENT

The de fendan t i s chargcd wi th having commit ted the

f o l l o w i n g o f f e n c e a g a i n s t S . 265(1) ( f ) of the Bankruptcy A c t

1 9 6 6 on or about 9 N O V e d J e r 1970: namely, that he, b e i n g a

bankrup t d id omi t a m a t e r i a l p a r t i c u l a r f r o m a s t a t e m e n t r e l a t i n g

t o h i s a f fa i r s . The in fo rma t ion gave t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r t l c u l a r s

of t h e o f f e n c e :

1. t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t became a bankrupt on 24

September 1 9 7 0 ;

2.	t h a t h e	was	an	undischarged	bankrupt	on	9	Kovember
1 9 7 0 ;

3 . t h a t from a s t a t e m e n t o f a f f a i r s a n n e x e d t o a n

a f f i d a v i t sworn by h i m on 9 November 1 9 7 0 he

omit ted f rom item 11, " I n t e r e s t u n d e r w i l l , deed

of s e t t l e m e n t , e t c . , as fo i1ows: -" o f Form 11

Pa r t V h e a d e d " P r o p e r t y " , h i s i n t e r e s t u n d e r t h e

will of Eva B u r s t a l l .

The d e f e n d a n t p l e a d e d n o t g u i l t y t o the charge . He

was r e6 resen ted by counse l , who a t t h e o u t s e t a d m i t t e d n o t o n l y

t h e t r u t h of t h o s e p a r t l c u l a r s b u t also t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s

i n t e r e s t u n d e r t h e w i l l of Eva B u r s t a l l was a l i f e i n t e r e s t

t o income and t h a t t h e o m i s s i o n a l l e g e d was t he omiss lon of a

material p a r t i c u l a r w l t h i n t h e m c a n l n g o f S . 265 (l) ( f ) . Ccunsel

s a i d t h a t t h e o n l y i s s u e i n t h e c a s e w o u l d b e w h e t h e r o r p o t

t he de fendan t on 9 November 1 9 7 0 suf fered f rom a m e n t a l d i s o r d e r

as a r e s u l t of wh ich he then cou ld no t and d id no t fo rm e i the r

t h e i n t e n t i o n t o d e f r a u d m e n t i o n e d i n S . 2 6 5 ( 9 ) o r a n y g u i l t y

i n t e n t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e o f f e n c e . S e c t i o n 2 6 5 ( 9 )

p r o v i d c s t h a t it is a d e f e n c e t o a charge under S . 265(1) ( f )

i f t h e d e f e n d a n t p r o v e s t h a t t h e o m i s s i o n t o w h i c h t h e c h a r q e

r e l a t e s was made w i t h o u t i n t e n t t o d e f r a u d a n y o f h l s c r e d i t o r s .

It is s a i d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l d i s o r d e r was

caused by J. series o f e v e n t s t h a t b e g a n i n 1 9 6 9 .

-2-

The defendant has been twice marr ied. he and h i s

f i r s t w i f e s e p a r a t e d i n 1 9 5 5 . By tha t mar r+age hc hac! f o u r

c h i l d r e n . A daughter gave evidence ( to which I shall r e f c r

l a t e r ) of t h e r c l c v a n k e v e n t s a n d t h e i r e f f e c t on h c r f a t h e r .

As will qppear , a son p layed a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t i n t h o s e events.

In abou t 1957 the de fendan t met ano the r woman, one biarcjaret

Ruby (known as "Midge") , who became h i s mistress. They l i v e d

toge the r fo r abou t twe lve yea r s and had a c h i l d , b u t were neve r

m a r r i e d . R o b e r t E u r s t a l l , a son o f t h e d e f e n d a n t by h:s f i r s t

m a r r i a g e , l i v e d w i t h t h e m from about 1957 t o 1 9 5 6 . Accordi ,3

t o h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e a d m i t t e d w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n , i n 1965 he cas

a t the age of s ix teen seduced by I la rgare t and thereupon, on r;he

a d v i c e o f h i s s i s te r , went t o l i v e e l s e w h e r e . He r e t u r n c d z f t e r

a y e a r or t\;o and was l i v i n g w i t h h i s f a t h e r a n d I,?argarck 0.1

C h r i s t m s Day 1 9 6 9 . On t h a t d a y t h e d e f e n d a n t , who had been

o away from h i s house , re turned in happy mood on ly t o f i n d th,t

h i s mistress had dccamped, lcavinq no indicat ion of where

she had defendant gone and taking w l t h h e r t h e i r c h i l d a n d a car t h a t r h e

had g iven her . A few weeks l a t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t

d i s c o v e r e d t h a t s h e was l i v i n g i n a f l a t i n t h e sa1i.e suburb and

t h a t h l s s o n R o b e r t	(whom	s h e h a s s i n c e m a r r i e d )	wcs	l i v i n g t: i th
h e r ,

Having been made banlrrupt on 2 4 Septexber 1 9 7 0 , t h e

defendan", on 9 October 1 9 7 0 marr ied a l a d y whom he hcd rct i n

August 1970 . The circumstances in which thc nlarr iaqe was

c o n t r a c t e d were n o t a u s p i c i o u s , a n d it d i d n o t a t first p r o s p e r .

They s e p a r a t e d q u i t e soon. A s will appea r , t he time a t whj ch

they sepa ra t ed i s unce r t a in and i s of some i m p o r t a n c e i n v i c v

o f t h e Fact t h a t t h e a l l c g e d o f f c n c e w i t h vhich tile defzlldant j,

charged occurred on 9 November 1 9 7 0 . T h e s e p a r a t i o n t u r n c d 3:;t

to be temporary only, and thc dct-endznt and his !life c2.ine

- 3-

t o g c t h c r n g a i n i n March or A p r i l 1971. A c h i l d v a s b o r n i n

1 9 7 2 . .

T h a t , b r i e f l y s t a i e d , i s t h e h i s t o r y w h i c h , it is s a i d ,

gave rise t o a menta l d i sorder f rom which the defendant was

s u f f e r i n g . 011 9 November 1 9 7 0 ,

The defendar , t should have nacie o u t a s t a t e m e n t o f h j s

a f fa i r s , v e r i f i e d by a f f l d a v l t , a n d f i l e d it i n t h e o f f l c e of

t h e r e g i s t r z r w i t h i n f o u r t e e n d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e ( 2 4 September

1970) o f t he seques t r a t ion o rde r , and shou ld have g iven e copy

t o t h e O f r i c i a l R e c e i v e r : S. 5 4 (l), ( 2 ) . He d i d not do so. 02

4 November 1 9 7 0 he was interviewed a t t h c o f f i c e of t h e O f f i c i z l

Receiver by Mr. Randolph, a r e a l i z a t i o n o f f i c e r t h e n emgloyed

i n t h a t o f f i c e . A c c o r d l n g t o a con tenpora ry no te o f

Hr. Randolph’s the defendant produced a m d l c a l cert if iceL3 CO

the e f fec t t h a t h e was su€fer i r lg f rom a nervous breakdow.~ zqd

was n o t f i t to a t t e n d c o u r t ; a n d h e a p p e a r e d t o l\!r. Randolph t o

be somewhat zg i t a t ed and wor r i ed . The re was a g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n

abou t h’is gave from x-.emory d e t a i l s of h i s assets b u t made no mention assets and l i a b i l i t l e s d u r i n g w h i c h t h e d e f e n s a n t

of h i s

i n t e r e s t u n d e r h i s m o t h e r ’ s will.

On 9 Novcmher 1970 t h e d e f e n d a n t c a l l e d a g a i n TO see

Mr. Randolph. This tlme be b rought wi th h im h is s ta te inent of

a f f a i r s , two ques t ionna i r e s , and a document hes?ed “IYarnlng -

Dut ie s of Eankrupts” . All were p r in t ed fo rms . The las’i mcnt ior .d ,

whose t i t l e a d e q u a t e l y d e s c r i b e s i t s contents , concamecl a

pr in ted ac lmowledgemcnt , s igned by the defendant and da ted

9 November 1 9 7 0 by solneone else, t h a t he had rece lvcd it altd

understood it. The two q u e s t l o n n a i r e s , o n e r e l a t m g t o h i s

p e r s o n a l a n d t h e o t h e r t o h i s h u s i n c s s a f f a i r s , >:ere each t: I cr~c.c!

by him and i n each he wrote h i s ansvey.s t o the qur?qtio:-s i!: his

own hand. He hupse l f compl -e t ed and s lgned t hc a f f idav i t

-4-

v e r i f y i r l g h i s s t a t c m n t o f a r f a i r s , b u t luost though not a l l of

t h c d e t a i l s o f t h e s t a t e m s n t itself were w r i t t e n Ly a hand o the r

t h a n h i s own. €Ie s ays he does no t know who wrote them and

c a n n o t r e c a l l a n y o n e h e l p l n g him to p repa re the documen t . The

present charge i s based on the omission froin that clocumnt o f

a n y m e n t i o n o f h i s i n t e r e s t u n d e r h i s m o t h e r ' s rill.

The f a c t u a l b a s i s of t h e d e f e n c e , p u t s h o r t l y , 1s s a i d

to b e t h a t on 9 Kovcmber 1 9 7 0 the de fendan t was i n s u c h a

d i s t u r b e d m e n t a l s t a t e t h a t h e d i d n o t know o r u n d e r s t a n d Che

c o n t e n t s cr' t h e s t a t c m e n t o f a f f a i r s t o whosc t r u t h 2nd

completeness he swore, a n d d i d n c t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t h e was doing

any thing wrong.

The defendca t aave ev idence , and two w i t n e s s e s VCL-C;

c a l l e d o n h i s b e h a l f . The f i r s t was h i s d a u g h t e r v;!>on: I ha7.7e

mentioned. She i s a t r a i n e d n u r s e who graduated with h igk

d i s t i n c t i o n o n 1 6 J u l y 1 9 7 0 , and on 9 November 197: m a r r i e d t h e

o t h e r w i t n e s s , who i s a m e d i c a l p r a c t i t i o n e r p r a c t i s i n g as a

c o n s u l t a n t p s y c h i a t r i s t . Thc d e f e n d a n t ' s d a u g h t e r i n g i v i n ?

h e r e v i d e n c e showed a compass iona te and to l e ran t unde r s t and ing

of a n d r e g a r d f o r h e r f a t h e r , t o whom s h e p a i d c o n s l d e r a b l c

a t t e n t i o n d u r i n g h i s d o m e s t i c a n d f i n a n c i a l t r o u b l e s . B o t h she

husband p rope r conce rn fo r t he de fendan t ' s we l f a re wh ich , t oge the r w i th imprcssed m e a s hav ing an unde r s t andab le a d

and her

t h e c l o s e n c s s of t h e i r relationship t o him, I have kept i n

mind i n c o n s i d e r i n g the i r ev idence . The defendant himsel? was

unsure a s t o dates of i m p o r t a n t e v e n t s i n h i s l i f e a n d Ccnd?d t o

be d i s c u r s i v e . He d i d n o t g i v c m e t he jwprcs s ion of be ing

men ta l ly acu te .

The defendant went through a t l e a s t thrcnl times o f

crisis r e l e v a n t t o t h e s e p r o c x d ~ n g s : h i s d e s e r t i m by J~L!i-~arcL,

. . . . . . . - . - - . . . - - _ _ - L.

i

-5-

t h e d i s c o v e r y ChLt she was l i v i n g ! : ~ t h h l s s o n , a n d t h e

l sepa:aCim from h i s s e c o n d 1:ife; ancl i n t h e -1~acl:ground all t h e

time was t h e d e t c r i o r a t i o n o f h i s f i n a n c i a l a f f z i r s , e n d i n g I n

I

! h i s bankrulstcy on 24 Septcnber 1 9 7 0 . His d a u g h t e r d c s c r i b e d

t h e e f f e c t of t h o s e e v e n t s upon him. H e was d i s t r a u c h t when

Margzret l e f t him. I I i s daugh te r says t h a t n c i t h r she n o r h e r

1

1 f a t h e r "at t h a t s t a g e knew about Robert and Midge". T h a t remark

i	i s n o t	easy	to unde r s t and :	t he daugh te r had	knotin	of	R o b e r t ' s
l

a f f a i r w i th X a r g a r e t , h e r f a t h e r s ays i n e f i ec t t h z t h e h a d

i	suppressed	a	s u s p i c i o n o f	i t ,	unab1.e	t o b e l l e v e s u c h	a	t h i n g o f
!

h i s s o n , a n d n o t o n l y M a r g a r e t , b u t a l s o R o b e r t , h i s car and

h i s c l o t h c s h a d v a n i s h e d on Christmas Day. Be t h a t a s it may,

t h e d e f e a d a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n grew vmrse a f t e r he d i s c o v e r d RGkIT':

e?s;.onced i n M a r q a r e t ' s f l a t : h e t h r e a t e n e d s u i c i d e ; l-IC: ncqlectr*ci

h i s business, h i s h o u s e a n d h i s c l o t h e s ; h i s moderatc d r i n k i n g

became heavy, and h i s hand shook so t h a t he could n x \!rite.

H i s concZition improved and he became happier when i n August he

m e t h i s €ut clre second wlfe. Thei r marr iage on 9 October 1370

a p p a r e n t l y r a i s e d him to a s o m e w h a t e u p h o r i c s t o t e i n s p i t e o f

h i s h a v i n g become bankrupt on 2 4 September 1 9 7 0 , because ~n

9 Noverrhcr 1 9 7 0 he t o l d Pt. Randolph t h a t h e h a d i n t e n d a y s

s p e n t on a wedding recept ion , a honeymoon and o the r l i v i n g c o s t s

$800 of $1,000 t h a t f e l l i n t o h i s h a n d s o n 6 October 1 9 7 0 .

Then came t h c s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e newly-wed husband and

wife. I I i s d a u g h t e r d e s c r i b e d t h e c a t a s t r o p h i c e f f e c t it

immnediate1.y had on he r f a the r , end ing in h e r f i n d i n g him l i v i n g

a l o n e a n d i n s q u a l o r m a p r i m i t i v e s h a c k a t Col0 !Icj gh t s . Eu t

t h e q u e s t i o n i s - when d i d t h e s e p a r a t i o n o c c u r ? The d e f e n d a n t ' s

daughter says w i t h i n t h r e e weeks a f t c r the mar r i age . If so,

it happcned beforc 9 Noventbcr 1 9 7 0 , so t h a t t h e d e f c n d ~ n t ,

l	1	havinc;	( t o use hrs son-in- law's	words)	c lutched	a t	t h e s t r a w
-6-

of his second marr iage and found t h a t it had broken, might well

be expected t o have been i n a cons iderably worse menta l . s ta te

on t h a t d a t e t h a n b e f o r e it.

I am however by no means s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e s c p a r a t i c n

occur red be fo re 9 Noverber 1970. In g iv ing ev idence be fo re

me t h e d e f e n d a n t r e f e r r e d t o t h e s e p a r a t i o n , a n d t h c r e t h e n

fo l lowed these ques t ions and answers :

"HIS HOXOUR: How l ong was t h i s a f t e r you \?ere mar r i ed

t o h e r ? --- Quite some months. She was n o t ~ c r y ~,:ell

and I was - - I s t i l l was no t myse l f . We d i d \ - h a t we

c o u l d f o r e a c h o t h e r b u t WC thought lt v:ould ::c.

b e t t e r i f	we	v e n t a l o n g u n t i l	I	g o t my	f ee t on	t h e
ground.

Do you mean you and she were s e p a r a t e d f o r some

months? --- Yes.

When d id you sepa ra t e? How l o n g a f t e r you- m-rriage?

- -- We vent on our honeymoon a d came back. I an

n o t s u r e i n a c t u a l tlme.

A matter of months or days? --- Months, oh ~ C S . 'I

0

Not t o o much defendant '7as markedly r e l i a n c e s h o u l d be p u t on t h a t e v i d e n c e , as t h e

uncer ta in about da tes and times. The

fo l lowi i lg ex t rac ts f rom one of the two q u e s t i o n a i r e s f i l l e d i n

and s igned ay the de fendan t are more s i g n i f i c a n t ( t h o u g h 0:1

9 November 1 9 7 0 the defendant had been marr ied not for s i x weeks

b u t f o r o n l y j u s t o v e r f o u r ) :

"li(a) Who a re depenzen t upon you f o r s u p p o r t ? ---

Wife B a r b a r a E u r s t d l . "

" 3 6 (a) Has your wife any assets of any kind? --- Y C S .

(b) If so, g i v e p a r t i c u l a r s a n d s t a t e how she

ob ta ined i t i f acqu l r ed s ince he r mar r l ac j e to

you. --- Married s1x weeks she has on ly pe r sona l

c l o t h e s e tc . "

There i s no rcason t o d o u b t t h a t t h e d c f e n d a n t ' s

s cpa ra t ion f rom h i s s econd wlfe was fol lowed by s c v c r e

d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n h i s c o n d i t i o n b u t t h e c v i d e n c c d o e s n o t s a t i s i y

m e t h a t t h e s e p a r a t i o n o c c u r r c d b e f o r e 9 November 1 9 7 0 and v a s

t h e r e r o k t h e n a; add i t iona l f ac to r ope ra t inc j . on the de fcndan t ' c

- 7-

mind. I a m i n e l l n e d t o t h i n k t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d a u g h t e r

was n o t u n a w ~ r e of t h e a d v a n t a g e t o her f a t h e r o f d a t i n g ~ t s

o c c u r r e n c e e a r l i e r t h a n 9 ICovember 1 9 7 0 , a n d t h a t i n t h l s case

t h e d e f e n d a n t i s the more accura te .

The w e l l - q u a l i f i e d c o n s u l t a n t p s y c h i a t z i s t who gave

e v i d e n c e f o r t h e d e f e n c e i s , a s I have sa id , t he husband or' t h e

d e f e n d a n t ' s d a u g h t e r , whom he marr ied on 9 Novenber 1973. V'hcn

she graduated on 16 J u l y 1 9 7 0 he was the depu ty med lca l

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f t h e h o s p i t a l a t which she graduated, and on

t h a t o c c a s i o n met t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e f i r s t time and t a lked

wi th him f o r z b o u t f i f t e e n or t h i r t y minuLes. No a t t a c h v z I t h c d

y e t fo rmed be tween the doc to r and h i s fu tu re wife and he Itncv

n o t h i n g a b o u t h e r f a t h e r , t o whom he spoke m e r e l y a s t h e f a t h c r

of t h e m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d g r a d u c t e . The d o c t o r o b s e r v e d t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t was no t happy and chee r fu l , as t h e o c c a s i o n drl;,ar.d;-d,

and says "To me he seemed depressed, perhaps even very depressEd,

* and he seemed t o b e a c t i n g i n a puppe t - l l ke f a sh lon - he \:as

j u s t go ing th rough the mot ions o f be ing the re bu t t he re was no

emotional	involvement" .
The d o c t o r was overseas f rom August or September 1S71

u n t i l t h e e n d of 1 9 7 2 , a n d d i d n o t see t h e d e f e n d a n t a g a i n u n t i l

1973. Accordingly, he b a s e s h i s o p i n i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s

medi.ca1 stake on 9 November 1 9 7 0 o n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n o f 1G J c l y

1 9 7 0 , on v h a t h e h a s s i n c e l e a r n e d o f t h e d e f e n d a n C ' s h i s t o r y

from h i s wife ancl f rom the de fendan t h imse l f , and on h i s

obse rva t ions o f t he de fendan t s lnce 1973 . He t h i n k s t h a t i n

1 9 7 0 the de fendan t was s u f f e r i n g i n t e n s e a n x i e t y and t h a t a s l i q h t

stroke which the defendant was t h o u g h t t o h a v e s u f f e r e d in

1969 was i n f a c t t h e c o n v c r s i o n i n t o a p h y s i c a l symptom of some

o f h i s a n s l e t y . His views may be sumcla-ised as b e i n g t h a t t h e

severe g e n e ~ - a t i o n o f a n x i e t y r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e f e n d a n t losing

-8-

t o u c h w i t h r c a l i t y a n d s u f f c r l n g f r o m m l l e s l a , so t h a t whcn he

was p rc scn ted vi th a document i t s e l f c a p a b l e o: q e n e r a h n g

a n x i e t y , h i s mind d i d n o t r e g i s t e r t h e d o c u m e n t o r what he

was do ing wi th it, or how he was doinrj what he was doing.

The de fendac t h imse l f s ays he rcrncrsbers nothinq of s ig! l inS

t h e s t a t e m c n t o f a f f a i r s o r o€ g o i n g t o see Mr. Randol.~h or of

v i s i t i n g t h e O f f i c i a l Receiver's o f f i c e . He made a couple

of r e f e r e n c e s t o b e i n g a b l e t o remember leav ing the Bankruptcy

Court. AS t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r shovs t h a t h e was n o t p r e s e n t

when t h a t o r d e r was made on t h e r e t u r n d z t e of t h e p e t i t i o n ,

he vas n o d o u b t r e f e r r i n g t o t he occas ion on 10 September 1 3 7 2

when he wa,., publ . ic ly exanincd.

One f o r m i d a b l e o b s t a c l e i s f x e d by t h e d e f e n c e t h a t i n

h i s men ta l ly d i s tu rbed cond i t io ; ! t he de fendan t was unawaro of

what he war; Loing and incapaLle of forming any re levant

i n t e n t i o n . I t is t h i s : t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f g a v e cvicle!ncc

*

t h z t h e d i d c o n s c i o u s l y t u r n h i s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e quesc ion

i : h e t h e i h e s h o u l d l n c l u d e i n h i s s t a t e m s n t o f a f f a i r s a n y

r e f e r e n c e KO h i s i n t e r e s t u n d e r h i s m o t h e r ' s will, and decided

tha t he need no t men t ion it. I n f a c t , o n 23 J u l y 1969 he had

m o r t g a g e d h i s i n t e r e s t t o a money-lender t o s e c u r e t h e r e p a y m n t

of t h e p r i n c i p a l o f , a n d t h e p a y m e n t o f i n t e r e s t o n , t h e loan

o v e r t h r e e y e a r s ancl h a d g i v e n t h e t r u s t e e o f h i s m o t h e r ' s

e s t a t e a d i r e c t i o n a n d a u t h o r i t y , i r r e v o c a b l e w i t h o u t t h e

l e n d e r ' s w r i k t e n c o n s e n t , t o p a y t o t h e l e n d e r a l l moneys due t o

the defendant f rom the es t a t e . Accord ing ly he was r e c e i v i n g no

money fro111 t h e e s t a t e on 9 Novcmbcr 1 9 7 0 and would not rece lve

any u n t i l i n t e r e s t . S i n i l a r l y 1 9 7 2 . The re fo re , he s a y s , he d i d n o t m e n t i o n h i s

he dxd n o t d i s c l o s c , a s h e s h o u l d h a v e

discl .oscd, the c x i s t e n c e o f the d e b t - becausc, he s z y s , he d i d

no t t h ink he o\ccd t h e d e b t , a s it was hc ing pa id by t h e t r u s t c c

-9-

of t h e estate.

I n o t e i n p a s s i n g t h a t t h e l o a n wa6 made t o tile

defcndar!t and "his wife Nhrcjaret B u r s t a l l " , a n d t h a t t h e y e a c h

s igned all the loan documcnts , including a s t a t u t o r y d c c l a r a t l o n

c o n t c > i n i q g t h e statement "We are marr ied to one another" , and an

acknowle6gement t h a t it was on t h e b a s i s of t h a t d e c l a r c t i o n

a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t t h e l e n d e r a g r e e d t o make the advance.

A t t h e p r e s e n t h e a r i n g l - e i t h e r s i d e r r e n t i o n e d t h o s e f a c t s ,

and I h a v e n o t t a k e n t h c m i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a r r i v i n g a t my

d e c i s i c n .

The e x p l a n a t i o n so given by t h e d e f e n d a n t of t h e

omission with which he i s charged i s d l scoun ted by h i s soa - in -

i n whose view it i s u n l i k e l y t h a t I n P a c t t h e d c f e n d a n t d l d

t u r n h i s mind t o t h e p r o b l e m o f whether or n o t t o mention 111s

i n t e r e s t i n h i s n o t h c r ' s es ta te , and more l i k e l y t h a t " h e i s

f i l l i n g i n t h e d e f i c i t b e c J u s e h e d i d n o t remei:iber Mr. lXando7ph

or t h e p o c m e n t " .

I t a k e i t t h a t u n d e r S. 285 ( 9 ) the burden cast on ~ l l c

defendant of p r o v i n g t h a t t h e o m j s s i o n was made w i t h o u t m t c n t

t o defraud any of h i s c r e d i t o r s i s d i scha rgcd If t h e lmlnncc

of p r o b a b i l i t l e s i s i n f a v o u r of t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n . C o n s i d e r i n g

the whole of the ev ldence I am of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t it i s

morc probable t h a n n o t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t knew what he was doing

when	h e c o m p l e t e d h i s s t a t e m e n t o f a f f a i r s , t h a t h e d i d t u r n h i s
mind	t o t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r h i s interest u n d e r h i s m o t h e r ' s wil.1

should be inc luded or omi t t ed , and tha t he consc ious ly dcc ldcd

i n f a v o u r of o n i s s l o n , b u t n o t f o r t h e r e a s o n h e now advances.

The s t a t e m c n t of a f f a i r s conl-;ins a schedu le of

s e c u r c d c r e d i t o r s . '1'11~ d c t a l l s wcxe m o s t l y i n s e r t e d by so:vonc

o t h c r t h a n t h e d c f e n d a n t . Two sccu red Cred i to r s a r e shown .

The e s t ima ted va iue of t h c s e c u r i t y : l c l d by one has lxcn a l t c r cd

-10-

and t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s i n i t i a l l e d t h c a l t e r a t i o n . The defendant

has i n s e r t e d detai ls of t h e a d d r e s s of the o t h e r creditor, h a s

i n s e r t e d t h e amount o f i t s d e b t a s $ 2 , 5 2 8 . 2 2 , h a s a l t e r e d t h e

v a l u e o f t h e s e c u r i t y f r o m $1,300 t o $ 1 , 6 0 0 , a n c l h a s i n s a r t e d

the amount o f t h e e s t i m a t e d d e f i c i e n c y as $ 9 2 8 . 2 2 . I n t h e

s c h e d u l e o f u n s e c u r e d c r e d i t o r s he h a s i n s e r t e d t h e amounc of

one debt and amended t h e a d d r e s s of t h c c r e d i t o r , a n d h e h a s

i n i t i r l l e d h i s own a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e amount of another debc f rom

$ 1 , 4 0 0 t o $1 ,165 .09 . As I have sa id , he h imsel f compl-c-ted and

s i g n e d t h s v e r l f y i n g a f f i d a v i t . He also comple ted thc su;-axy

s h e e t w i t h a n e r r o r i n s u b t r a c t i o n a m o u n t i n g t o 5G c e n t s .

I c a n n o t a c c e p t t h a t t h o s e i n s e r t i o n s a n 2 a m e n d m c r t s

were ma6e h y a man upon whose mmd t h e stateme::t o € a f E a i r s

s i m p l y d i d n o t register and who d i d n o t know whnt he vas

doing. Nor can I a c c e p t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e

d e c i d e d t o make the r e l evanc omiss ion fo r t he r eason hc nov

g i v e s . * It is i n c o n s i s t e n t w l t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t he d i d

not know w h a t he was doing. I t wa5 i n t r o d u c e d t h u s , i n ans;;er

t o t h e f i r s t q u e s t l o n a s k e d o f t h e d e f e n d a n t i n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n :

"tlr. B u r s t a l l , do y o u a g r e e i n t h e d c c u n e n t , t h e

a f f i d a v l t v e r i f y i n g t h c s t a t e m e n t o f your a f f a l r s

a n d t h e s t a t e n e n t o f a f f a l r s I t s e l f , no r e f e r e n c e

I was made t o t h e i n t e r e s t you had under your mother 's

w i l l , i s t h a t so? --- Y e s I must have --- I thought

t h a t I was	not	rece	ivmg any	lncome	so	I	d l d n ' t h a v e
a n i n t e r e s t " .

1

I n my o g i n i o n t h c d e f e n d a n t i n g i v i n g a n d d e v c l o p i n g t h a t e v l c k n c e

was c l e a r l y i m p r o v i s i n g .

I do no t re ject e n t i r c l y t h e s u b m i s s i o n t h a t on

9 Novcnber d i s t u r b e d , b u t 1 9 7 0 the de fendan t ' s men ta l con3 i t lon was somewhat

my conclus ion i s t h a t it was much less d i s t u r b c d

than he would have me b e l i c v e . I b e l i e v e t h a t on o r s h o r t l y

a f t e r C h r i s t m a s Day 1 9 6 9 he suf fered what miglll- we11 h,lvc been

descr ibLd as a nervous breakdown; but I t h i n k t h a t b y 9 Kovr mbcr

-11-

1.970 h e h a d s u f f i c i e n t l y r c c o v c r e d t o b e a b l e to undcrs tund

t h e p r i n t e d fonn of h i s s t a t e m e n t o f a f f a i r s a n d know what hc

was doing when he f i l l c d i t l n apd swore t o i t s t r u t h and

completeness . He h imsel f on t h a t day answercd one of t h e i t e m s

i n a q n e s t i o n n a i r e , "Have you been uncmployed for any per-Lod

d u r i n g t h e l a s t f i v e y e a r s ? If so, f o r what p e r i c d s and from

what ccuse?", lly wr i t i l l g "6 mths from 25th Dec. Nervous breakC.3;:ii".

I a l s o b e l i e v e t h a t on 9 November 1 9 7 0 the defcnciznt gave

N r . Randolph the impress ion tha t he was ag l t a t ed and wor r i ed :

anyone who had r ecen t ly become bankrupt might well be a r r i ta tcd

and worxied , espec ia l ly i f h c h a d n o t f u l f i l l e d h i s f i r s t du ty

of c o r r p l e t l n g a n d f i l i n g a s t a t emen t of h i s a f f a i r s .

On the whole of the cv idmce , however , I fin:: t h a t ti:e

defence oEfered under S. 295 ( 9 ) f a i l s , a n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t

e is gui l ty of the offence charged .

I s h a l l h e a r c o u n s e l o n the q u e s t l o n of p e n a l t y .

l