Legal Research
Cases
Slipper v Turner

Slipper v Turner

Case [2015] ACTSC 27 26 February 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Slipper v Turner
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 27
Hearing Dates:	17, 18 December 2014
DecisionDate:	26 February 2015
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	The appeals are upheld and the convictions and penalties imposed by the Magistrate are set aside. Verdicts of not guilty are substituted with respect to each charge.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Offences Against Government – Dishonesty Offences – dishonestly cause a risk of loss to a person which is a Commonwealth entity knowing or believing that there is a substantial risk of the loss occurring. APPEAL – Appeals From Magistrates – appeal upheld – convictions and penalties set aside – verdicts of not guilty entered.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 135.1 (5) Magistrates Court Act1930 (ACT), s 214
Cases Cited:	Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 Dyers v R [2002] HCA 45 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559 M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mannella v The Queen [2010] VSCA 357 Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493 R v Betancur-Galvis [2003] NSWCCA 333; (2003) 142 A Crim R 527 Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 Theodorelos v Nexus Projects Pty Ltd [2009] ACTSC 149 Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65
Parties:	Peter Neil Slipper (Appellant) Michael Patrick Turner (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K Weston-Scheuber (Appellant) Ms W Abraham QC (Respondent)
Solicitors Harris Wake Solicitors (Appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 70 of 2014
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Chief Magistrate Walker Date of Decision: 28 July 2014 Case Title: Michael Patrick Turner v Peter Neil Slipper Court File Numbers: CC13/40001; CC13/40002; CC13/40003

Burns J:

On 28 July 2014 the appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of the following offences:

(a)that on 20 January 2010 in the Australian Capital Territory he dishonestly               caused a risk of loss to a person, namely the Department of Finance and                  Deregulation, which is a Commonwealth entity, knowing or believing that       there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring (CC13/40001);
(b)that on 12 April 2010 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he                    dishonestly caused a risk of loss to a person, namely the Department of   Finance and Deregulation, which is a Commonwealth entity, knowing or   believing that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring (CC13/40002); and
(c)that on 27 June 2010 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he                   dishonestly caused a risk of loss to a person, namely the Department of   Finance and Deregulation, which is a Commonwealth entity, knowing or   believing that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring (CC13/40003).

Each of these offences is contrary to s 135.1 (5) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), which is in the following terms:

(5)A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a)…

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 Slipper v Turner

Details

AGLC: Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27
Case: [2015] ACTSC 27
Decision Date: 26 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Slipper v Turner involved an appeal against convictions related to charges of causing a risk of loss to a Commonwealth entity, brought under specific sections of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The appellant, Mr Slipper, was charged with multiple counts related to dishonestly causing a risk of loss to the Australian Federal Police, knowing there was a substantial risk of loss occurring. The matter was initially heard and determined in the Magistrates Court, where Mr Slipper was found guilty on all counts. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Mr Slipper pursued an appeal to the higher court.

The legal issues central to the appeal centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the conduct of Mr Slipper met the statutory criteria for the offences, particularly the elements of dishonesty and the requisite knowledge or belief regarding the substantial risk of loss. The appeal also examined the adequacy of the evidence presented to support the convictions. The court had to assess whether the Magistrate's findings were legally sound and whether the appeal court could uphold the convictions based on the evidence and applicable law.

In reviewing the matter, the appeal court found significant issues with the Magistrate's interpretation of the statutory provisions and the application of those provisions to the facts of the case. The court held that the Magistrate had incorrectly applied the legal standards, particularly regarding the elements of dishonesty and the requisite knowledge or belief. The evidence was also found to be insufficient to support the convictions beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal court set aside the convictions and penalties imposed by the Magistrate, substituting verdicts of not guilty on each charge. The appeal was thus upheld in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeals are upheld and the convictions and penalties imposed by the Magistrate are set aside. Verdicts of not guilty are substituted with respect to each charge.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27

Most Recent Citation

Huggard v Murray [2016] ACTSC 246

Cases citing this decision · 5 of 5 shown

NH v Dixon
[2022] ACTSC 218

…e erred in law or fact or exercised her discretion in a way that was clearly wrong: see Connelly v Allan (2011) 212 A Crim R 320 and Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27, recently approved in Huggard v Murray [2016] ACTSC 246.…
Bethke v Phelan
[2016] ACTSC 328

…erred in law or fact or exercised her discretion in a way that was clearly wrong: see Connelly v Allan (2011) 212 A Crim R 320 and Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27, recently approved in Huggard v Murray [2016] ACTSC 246. 6. The distinction between appeals by an offender and appeals by the Crown was made in R v Ral…
Hamlin v Watkins
[2019] ACTSC 24 Para 1

…red in law or fact or exercised her discretion in a way that was clearly wrong: Connelly v Allan [2011] ACTSC 170; 212 A Crim R 320; Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27; 294 FLR 164 recently approved in Huggard v Murray [2016] ACTSC 246; 312 FLR 104; Bethke v Phelan [2016] ACTSC 328 at [8] ( Bethke ).…
Williams v Power
[2016] ACTSC 293 Para 1

…discretion on a wrong principle or in a way that is clearly wrong. Error on the part of the Magistrates Court must be established : Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27.…
Huggard v Murray
[2016] ACTSC 246 Para 1

…The respondent’s written submissions correctly summed up the principles derived from Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27 in this way:…

View all 5 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Mannella v R
[2010] VSCA 357 Para 1

…n of the circumstantial evidence was of equal or greater strength to the inference of guilt in order to displace that inference: Mannella v The Queen [2010] VSCA 357.…
Theodorelos v Nexus Projects Pty Ltd
[2009] ACTSC 149 Para 1

…trates Court and has power to draw inferences of fact based upon that evidence: s 214 Magistrates Court Act . In Theodorelos v Nexus Projects Pty Ltd [2009] ACTSC 149 at [78], Refshauge J described such an appeal in the following terms:…
Libke v The Queen
[2007] HCA 30 Para 1

…act was bound to have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant. As Hayne J (with whom Gleeson CJ and Heydon J agreed) in Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559 at [113] said:…
R v Betancur-Galvis
[2003] NSWCCA 333 Para 1

…his innocence: Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 535. There was no onus on the appellant to advance such a hypothesis: R v Betancur-Galvis [2003] NSWCCA 333; (2003) 142 A Crim R 527, nor was it necessary that the Magistrate be satisfied that any alternative explanation of the circumstantial evidence was o…
Fox v Percy
[2003] HCA 22 Para 1

…In Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 the High Court (Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ) said at [25], regarding such an appeal:…
Dyers v The Queen
[2002] HCA 45 Para 1

…out this failure. First, no inference against either the accused or the prosecution arises from the fact that they did not give evidence: Dyers v R [2002] HCA 45; (2002) 210 CLR 285. Secondly, and most importantly, the fact that the prosecution did not call these witnesses meant that there was no direct evidence…
Peters v the Queen
[1998] HCA 7 Para 1

…g payment for travel in circumstances where he had no entitlement to travel at public expense, when he knew that he had no entitlement. In Peters v R (1998) 192 CLR 493 Toohey and Gaudron JJ expressed the proper approach to a charge alleging dishonesty at [18]:…
M v the Queen
[1994] HCA 63 Para 1

…Particular principles apply in appeals where it is alleged that a verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory. In M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 the High Court (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ) at [7] set out those principles:…
Weissensteiner v The Queen
[1993] HCA 65 Para 1

…cution case, such that any inference of guilt was not strengthened by the failure of the appellant to give evidence: see Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65; (1993) 178 CLR 217.…
Shepherd v The Queen
[1990] HCA 56 Para 1

…s a rational inference based on the evidence. In such a case it may only be proved where guilt is the only rational inference available: Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 at 578. In order to find the appellant guilty, the Magistrate was obliged to exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence: Chamberlain v R (N…
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2)
[1984] HCA 7 Para 1

…78. In order to find the appellant guilty, the Magistrate was obliged to exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence: Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 535. There was no onus on the appellant to advance such a hypothesis: R v Betancur-Galvis [2003] NSWCCA 333; (2003) 142 A Crim R 527, nor was it n…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
214 2 mentions (from Para 1)