STEPHENSON -v- TRESER [2014] WASC 181
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 181 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1062/2011 | 11 NOVEMBER 2013 | |
| Coram: | LE MIERE J | 28/05/14 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Conviction set aside Verdict of acquittal substituted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TIMOTHY RICHARD STEPHENSON ALFREDO JAVIER TRESER |
Catchwords: | Appeal Conviction for obtaining financial advantage by deception Criminal Code (Cth) s 134.2(1) Whether magistrate's finding that element of 'recklessness' was proved beyond reasonable doubt amounted to miscarriage of justice in light of appellant's conduct |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a) Criminal Code (Cth), s 5.4(1), s 133.1, s 134.2 |
Case References: | Ascic v Bedworth [2013] WASCA 174 Hunt v Callaghan [2011] WASC 10 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 Ska v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 Thakrar v Hull [2013] WASC 447 The State of Western Australia v Rayney [2013] WASCA 219 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
ALFREDO JAVIER TRESER
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE G D LAWRENCE
File No : PE 45260 of 2009
Catchwords:
Appeal - Conviction for obtaining financial advantage by deception - Criminal Code (Cth) s 134.2(1) - Whether magistrate's finding that element of 'recklessness' was proved beyond reasonable doubt amounted to miscarriage of justice in light of appellant's conduct
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 5.4(1), s 133.1, s 134.2
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
Verdict of acquittal substituted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D Grace QC
Respondent : Ms R V C Fogliani
Solicitors:
Appellant : Eastwood Sweeney Law
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Ascic v Bedworth [2013] WASCA 174
Hunt v Callaghan [2011] WASC 10
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606
Ska v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400
Thakrar v Hull [2013] WASC 447
The State of Western Australia v Rayney [2013] WASCA 219
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300
1 LE MIERE J: The appellant was convicted, after a trial before a magistrate, that he, on or about 11 July 2002, by deception, dishonestly obtained a financial advantage from another person, the Australian Taxation Office, a Commonwealth entity, contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The appellant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction. This court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be heard at the same time as the appeal. The respondent does not contest the…
Continue reading Stephenson v Treser
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stephenson v Treser [2014] WASC 181
- Case
- [2014] WASC 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Stephenson appealed against his conviction for obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to section 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The case arose from an incident where Stephenson was alleged to have obtained a financial advantage by deceiving a financial institution. The primary judge in the Magistrates Court found Stephenson guilty, concluding that the element of recklessness was established beyond reasonable doubt. Stephenson argued that the magistrate's conclusion was a miscarriage of justice, particularly in light of his conduct which he claimed did not amount to recklessness.
The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate's finding that the element of recklessness was proved beyond reasonable doubt constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court examined whether the evidence supported the magistrate's conclusion and if the error was such that it affected the fairness of the trial. The court had to determine whether the error was a mere irregularity or a fundamental one that impacted the outcome of the trial.
The court found that the magistrate had erred in concluding that the element of recklessness was established beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the evidence and Stephenson's conduct and concluded that the error amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the error was fundamental and affected the fairness of the trial, leading to the conclusion that the conviction should be set aside. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and substituted a verdict of acquittal.
The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate's finding that the element of recklessness was proved beyond reasonable doubt constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court examined whether the evidence supported the magistrate's conclusion and if the error was such that it affected the fairness of the trial. The court had to determine whether the error was a mere irregularity or a fundamental one that impacted the outcome of the trial.
The court found that the magistrate had erred in concluding that the element of recklessness was established beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the evidence and Stephenson's conduct and concluded that the error amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the error was fundamental and affected the fairness of the trial, leading to the conclusion that the conviction should be set aside. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and substituted a verdict of acquittal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
Verdict of acquittal substituted
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.