Regina v Adler - [2000] NSWCCA 152

CITATION: Regina v Adler [2000] NSWCCA 152 revised - 10/05/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60283/98

HEARING DATE(S): 17-18 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v George Adler

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Hidden J at 74; Greg James J at 75

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0306; 98/11/0107

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Stewart ADCJ

COUNSEL : P. Roberts SC with M.A. Wigney (Crown)
M.A.M. MacGregor QC (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP
Jeffreys and Associates

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Trial - Withdrawal of Legal Representatives - Continuance - Whether Trial Unfair - Indictment - Duplicity - Content of Charge to Jury - Sufficiency of Evidence on Particular Count

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act s 178BA

CASES CITED:
Adler v District Court of NSW 1990 19 NSWLR 317
Browne v Dunn 1894 6R 67
Dietrich v The Queen 1992 177 CLR 292
Doney v The Queen 1990 171 CLR 207
Edwards v The Queen 1993 178 CLR 193
Johnson v Miller 1937 59 CLR 467
R v Baraghith 1991 54 A Crim R 240
R v Ho 1988-89 39 A Crim R 145
R v Towner 1991 56 A Crim R 221
S v The Queen 1989 168 CLR 266

DECISION: Appeal Dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60283/98

GROVE J
HIDDEN J
GREG JAMES J

Monday 8 May 2000

REGINA v GEORGE ADLER

JUDGMENT
1 GROVE J : The appellant was tried before Stewart A/DCJ upon an indictment containing twenty one counts, each alleging an offence contrary to s178BA of the Crimes Act which provides:

“Whosoever by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another person any money or valuable thing or any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever shall be liable to imprisonment ……….”

Counts 1 to 15 involved obtaining by deception from seven nominated persons, cheques either for the appellant or a company Badrum Pty Limited (Badrum), with the exception of count 5 which alleged a financial advantage as particularized therein. Counts 16 to 21 alleged obtaining cash or cheques in varying amounts from an eighth person. The appellant was found guilty on all counts and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The appeal challenges the convictions.

2 The hearing of the trial extended from February to May 1998. At the commencement (February 16) the appellant was represented by senior and junior counsel and a solicitor. On March 2 representation effectively ceased. The learned trial judge in due course ruled that the trial would continue and the appellant conducted his defence without appearance on his behalf by any lawyer. It will be necessary in order to deal with some grounds of appeal now raised to detail later the circumstances surrounding these events. One consequence was that the appellant made an opening address and presented oral evidence in chief in a narrative form. From them it was established that many of the factual allegations made by the Crown were not disputed.
3 The essence of the Crown case was…

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 Regina v Adler

Details

AGLC: Regina v Adler [2000] NSWCCA 152
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 152
Decision Date: 8 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Adler involved the defendant, Mr Adler, who was charged with multiple offences including obtaining property by deception and fraud. The dispute arose during the trial, where Mr Adler's legal representatives sought to withdraw from the case, leading to a request for a continuance. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues the court had to address included whether the withdrawal of legal representatives and the potential for a continuance rendered the trial unfair, the validity of the indictment, and whether the content of the charge to the jury was appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider the sufficiency of the evidence presented on one of the counts.

The court began by examining the procedural fairness of the trial, given the withdrawal of Mr Adler's legal representatives. It was determined that while the withdrawal posed a challenge, the trial could proceed fairly if adequate time was provided for the defendant to secure new representation. The court then assessed the indictment for duplicity, finding it to be clear and specific enough to inform Mr Adler of the charges against him. Regarding the content of the charge to the jury, the court held that the instructions were properly framed to guide the jury in their deliberation of the evidence. Lastly, the court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence on one particular count and concluded that it was adequate to support a conviction.

Ultimately, the court found that the trial could proceed in a fair manner despite the withdrawal of legal representatives, and there were no procedural defects that warranted a mistrial. The indictment was deemed valid, the jury's instructions were appropriate, and the evidence was sufficient on all counts. Therefore, the court upheld the convictions on all charges against Mr Adler. The final orders confirmed the convictions and directed the court to proceed with sentencing.

Orders