RILEY -v- HUNTER [2000] WASCA 371

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 371
Case No:	SJA:1187/1999	Heard:	13 NOVEMBER 2000
Coram:	MILLER J	Delivered:	1/12/00
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Convictions quashed Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing
PDF Version

Parties:	SPENCER KEITH RILEY ROBYN MOSTYN HUNTER
Catchwords:	Criminal law Defrauding the Commonwealth Obligations to refund unused travel allowance Whether a defence that appellant forgot about refunds Onus of proof Whether delegation of responsibility to refund a defence
Legislation:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D Criminal Code, s 24 Electricity Act Regulations 1947, reg 171
Case References:	Benter v Corkhill (1996) 106 A Crim R 75 Brimblecombe v Duncan [1958] Qd R 8 Cervantes Pty Ltd v State Energy Commission of Western Australia [1991] 5 WAR 355 G J Coles Coy Ltd v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR 183 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Harling v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437 Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507 McPherson v Cairn [1977] WAR 28 Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493 Proudman v Dayman (1943) 67 CLR 536 Farrell v R (1998) 194 CLR 286 Fleming v R [1998] HCA 68, 197 CLR 250 Glennon v R (1994) 179 CLR 1 R v Hildebrandt (1963) 81 WN (NSW) 143 KBT v R (1997) 191 CLR 417 Spies v R [2000] 173 ALR 529 Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : RILEY -v- HUNTER [2000] WASCA 371 CORAM : MILLER J HEARD : 13 NOVEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 1 DECEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : SJA 1187 of 1999 BETWEEN : SPENCER KEITH RILEY

Appellant

AND

ROBYN MOSTYN HUNTER

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Defrauding the Commonwealth - Obligations to refund unused travel allowance - Whether a defence that appellant forgot about refunds - Onus of proof - Whether delegation of responsibility to refund a defence

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D

Criminal Code, s 24
Electricity Act Regulations 1947, reg 171

Result:

Appeal allowed

Convictions quashed
Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A R Beech

Respondent : Mr G T J Farley

Solicitors:

Appellant : Monaghan & Associates

Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Benter v Corkhill (1996) 106 A Crim R 75
Brimblecombe v Duncan [1958] Qd R 8
Cervantes Pty Ltd v State Energy Commission of Western Australia [1991] 5 WAR 355
G J Coles Coy Ltd v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR 183
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Harling v Hall (1997) 94 A Crim R 437
Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507
McPherson v Cairn [1977] WAR 28
Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493
Proudman v Dayman (1943) 67 CLR 536

Case(s) also cited:

Farrell v R (1998) 194 CLR 286
Fleming v R [1998] HCA 68, 197 CLR…

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 Riley v Hunter

Details

AGLC: Riley v Hunter [2000] WASCA 371
Case: [2000] WASCA 371
Decision Date: 1 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Riley v Hunter, the appellant was convicted in the Court of Petty Sessions for defrauding the Commonwealth by failing to refund unused travel allowance. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant appealed against his conviction. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's assertion that he had forgotten about the refunds could serve as a defence, and if so, whether the onus of proof lay with the appellant or the Crown. Another issue was whether the appellant could rely on the fact that the responsibility to refund the travel allowance had been delegated to another person as a defence.

The court held that the appellant's defence of forgetfulness did not constitute a valid defence as it did not absolve him of his obligation to refund the unused travel allowance. The court reasoned that forgetfulness was not a sufficient excuse for failing to comply with legal obligations. Furthermore, the court held that the delegation of responsibility to refund the travel allowance was not a valid defence, as the appellant remained ultimately responsible for ensuring that the refunds were made. The court held that the onus of proof lay with the appellant to demonstrate that he had fulfilled his obligations to refund the unused travel allowance. As the appellant had failed to discharge this onus, his convictions were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Convictions quashed

Matter remitted to Court of Petty Sessions for rehearing

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.