Rundle v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 200

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Rundle v R [2013] NSWCCA 200
Hearing dates: 13 December 2012; 12 February 2013; 13 February 2013
Decision date: 28 August 2013
Before: Simpson J at [1]; Fullerton J at [118]; Davies J at [146]
Decision:
Appeal against conviction be dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - appellant convicted following trial of two offences pursuant to s 178BB(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 - whether jury verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence - ample evidence on which jury could find charges proved - charges proved beyond reasonable doubt - materiality of statements known to appellant - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Graeme John Rundle (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M Thangaraj SC/I McLachlan (Appellant)
P McDonald SC/J Single (Respondent) (13/12/12)
P McDonald SC/Y Shariff (Respondent) (12/02/13-13/02/13)
Solicitors:
Lemonis Tantiprasut (Appellant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/218704; 2009/218711
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2011-09-09 00:00:00

Before:

Bozic DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/218704; 2009/218711

Judgment

SIMPSON J: On 24 June 2011, following a six week jury trial in the District Court, the appellant was convicted of two counts on an indictment. He now appeals against the convictions. He does not seek leave to appeal against the non-custodial sentences subsequently imposed.

Both counts on the indictment were laid under s 178BB(1) (since repealed) of the Crimes Act 1900. At the time the offences are alleged to have been committed, that sub-section provided as follows:

"178BB Obtaining money etc by false or misleading statements

(1) Whosoever, with intent to obtain for himself or another person any money or valuable thing or any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever, makes or publishes, or concurs in making or publishing, any statement (whether or not in writing) which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or which is false or misleading in a material particular and is made with reckless disregard as to whether it is true or is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable to imprisonment for 5 years."

Each count alleged that the appellant, on or about 31 May 2004, with intent to obtain a financial advantage for Scots Church Development Pty Ltd [one of a group of companies of which the appellant was an employee], published a statement that he knew to be false or misleading in a material particular. Both charges arose out of a letter written by the appellant on 31 May 2004, which the Crown alleged contained two statements that were false or misleading in a material particular. The charges came to be referred to, respectively, as "the mezzanine charge" and "the profit charge".

The appellant did not give or call evidence. His response to the charges relied upon analysis of the extensive documentation in the Crown case. The appellant's case was and is that neither statement was, when properly read…

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 Rundle v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rundle v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 200
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 200
Decision Date: 28 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rundle v The Queen, the appellant was convicted following a trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales of two offences under section 178BB(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The appellant sought to appeal against his conviction, arguing that the jury verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The central issue in this case was whether the jury's findings were justified by the evidence presented at trial.

The court considered the appellant's argument that the jury verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The appellant contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court found that there was ample evidence on which the jury could find the charges proved. The court found that the jury had access to all the relevant evidence, including statements known to the appellant, and was entitled to draw inferences from the evidence presented. The court held that the jury had correctly applied the law and that the verdicts were supported by the evidence.

In light of the above, the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the jury had correctly applied the law and that the verdicts were supported by the evidence. The court held that the appellant's convictions were properly upheld and that there was no basis for setting aside the convictions. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's convictions were upheld.

Orders