Tasmania v Serpanos - [2007] TASSC 78

[2007] TASSC 78

CITATION: Tasmania v Serpanos [2007] TASSC 78

PARTIES:  TASMANIA, STATE OF
  v
  SERPANOS, Harry

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  162/2007
DELIVERED ON:  3 September 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  20 July 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Property offences – Forgery and uttering – Forgery – Particular acts – Signing donor's name on power of attorney – Authority from donor to do so – Whether a false document.

Criminal Code (Tas), s277(1).
Brott v R (1992) 173 CLR 426, distinguished.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [276]

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Property offences – Forgery and uttering – Forgery – Mens rea – Intent to deceive Recorder of Titles into thinking instrument valid and registering it – Whether "intent to defraud".

Criminal Code (Tas), ss277(1), 278, 279.
Welham v Director of Public Prosecutions [1961] AC 103, followed.
R v Franklin [1991] Tas R 54; R v Turner (No 4) (2001) 10 Tas R 81, applied.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [278]

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Property offences – Forgery and uttering – Uttering – Whether instrument forged – Whether document false – Signing of donor's name on power of attorney with donor's authority – Whether "intent to defraud" – Intent to deceive Recorder of Titles into thinking instrument valid and registering it.

Criminal Code (Tas), ss277(1), 278, 279.
Welham v Director of Public Prosecutions [1961] AC 103, followed.
R v Franklin [1991] Tas R 54; R v Turner (No 4) (2001) 10 Tas R 81, applied.
Brott v R (1992) 173 CLR 426, distinguished.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [281]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             State:  M P Shirley
             Accused:  A G Melick SC
Solicitors:
             State:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Michael Morehead & Associates

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 78
Number of paragraphs: 29

Serial No 78/2007
File No 162/2007

STATE OF TASMANIA v HARRY SERPANOS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J

3 September 2007

The questions that arise under the Criminal Code concern, for the purposes of sections dealing with forgery and uttering, what is a forged document, and more particularly, what is a false document, and what amounts to an intent to defraud.

The accused pleaded not guilty to one count of uttering against s279. The particulars state that on 28 March 1996, with intent to defraud, he uttered to the Recorder of Titles a document that purported to record that a power of attorney had been lawfully executed by Victoria Damdounis and Nickolas Damdounis, as donors of the power, knowing that the signature of Nickolas Damdounis was a forgery.

Questions

A jury has not yet been empanelled for the trial. Pursuant to the power to do so under s361A, I agreed to determine two questions of law that are expected to arise at the trial. They are:

1On the agreed facts, will it be open to the jury to conclude that the power of attorney dated 26 March 1996 was 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 Tasmania v Serpanos

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Serpanos [2007] TASSC 78
Case: [2007] TASSC 78
Decision Date: 3 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmania versus Serpanos was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The defendant, Serpanos, was charged with the offence of forgery and uttering. The dispute centred on whether the defendant had committed forgery by signing the donor's name on a power of attorney without proper authority, and whether the document was false. The prosecution argued that Serpanos had no authority to sign the donor's name and that the document was therefore false, while the defence contended that there was authority to sign the document.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant had the authority to sign the donor's name on the power of attorney and whether the document was false. The court needed to consider whether the authority given by the donor was sufficient and whether the document, as a result, could be considered false. The court also had to consider the definition of forgery under the law and whether the actions of the defendant fell within that definition.

The court found that the defendant did not have the authority to sign the donor's name on the power of attorney. The court held that the authority given by the donor was not sufficient and that the document was therefore false. The court further held that the defendant's actions fell within the definition of forgery under the law. As a result, the court found the defendant guilty of forgery and uttering.

The court ordered the defendant to be punished according to the law. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years and six months, with a non-parole period of one year and six months. The court also ordered that the defendant pay a fine of $2,000.

Orders