Tasmania v Shaw - [2012] TASSC 62

[2012] TASSC 62

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Shaw [2012] TASSC 62

PARTIES:  TASMANIA, State of
  v
  SHAW, Roberta

FILE NO/S:  41/2011
DELIVERED ON:  13 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  11, 12 and 13 September 2012
RULING OF:  Wood J

[Edited version of reasons for ruling delivered orally]

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Property offences – Other frauds and impositions – Fraud – Conspiracy – Conspiracy to defraud – Deflection of public officers from public duties – What public duties can be foundation of charge.

Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), s297(1)(d).
Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas), ss22, 23.
Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 (Tas), ss20, 40.
Tasmania v Lin [2011] TASSC 14, referred to.
Aust Dig Magistrates [2397]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  C Robinson
             Accused:  C J Gibson
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Charmaine Gibson

Judgment Number: [2012] TASSC 62
Number of paragraphs: 25

Serial No 62/2012
File No 41/2011

STATE OF TASMANIA v ROBERTA SHAW

REASONS FOR RULING WOOD J
Edited version of reasons for ruling delivered orally 13 September 2012

The accused has pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy, contrary to the Criminal Code, s297(1)(d). The indictment alleges that she "conspired with Stuart Gordon Shaw to defraud the Registrar of Motor Vehicles". Her trial is in progress, having reached the stage that the defence has closed its case, and counsel are yet to embark on closing addresses. I have raised with counsel a question relating to the nature of the duty vested in the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. This is my ruling with respect to the question.

The indictment is in the following terms:

"CONSPIRACY - Contrary to Section 297(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.
PARTICULARS
ROBERTA SHAW at Launceston in Tasmania and Melbourne in Victoria, between the 10^th of November 2008 and the 18^th of November 2008, conspired with Stuart Gordon Shaw to defraud the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the time being administering the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 by agreeing that Stuart Gordon Shaw would declare on Notice of Demand No 010545016635 that Roberta Shaw was the driver at the relevant time, resulting in Traffic Infringement No 010140790386 being issued to Roberta Shaw, which would be subsequently paid, in order to prevent or deflect the Registrar of Motor Vehicles from acting in accordance with the duties vested in him, namely to record demerit points against Stuart Shaw on the Demerit Points Register."

As can be seen, one of the particulars is that the agreement was "to prevent or deflect the Registrar of Motor Vehicles from acting in accordance with the duties vested in him, namely to record demerit points against Stuart Shaw on the Demerit Points Register". The basis of the State's case is that Stuart Shaw was the driver at the time of a traffic infringement, involving an offence of exceeding the speed limit. In view of the fact that the registered operator of the motor vehicle he was driving was…

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 Shaw

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Shaw [2012] TASSC 62
Case: [2012] TASSC 62
Decision Date: 13 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmania v Shaw arose in the High Court of Australia, where the state of Tasmania sought to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania that quashed a conviction against Shaw. Shaw was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the state government in relation to a property development project. The dispute centred around whether the conspiracy charge could be based on the deflection of public officers from their public duties.

The legal issue before the court was whether the public duties that could form the foundation of a charge of conspiracy to defraud must be limited to the performance of public duties. Specifically, it was questioned whether the charge could also be based on the deflection of public officers from the performance of their public duties. The court had to determine the scope and limits of the public duties that could underpin such a conspiracy charge.

The High Court held that the charge of conspiracy to defraud could indeed be based on the deflection of public officers from their public duties. The court rejected the narrow interpretation that would have limited the charge to the performance of duties. Instead, it was determined that the charge could encompass the broader concept of deflection from duties, which includes preventing or hindering the performance of those duties. This broader interpretation aligns with the mischief that the offence is intended to address. The court concluded that the conviction should stand, and the appeal by Tasmania was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal by Tasmania was dismissed, and the conviction of Shaw was upheld. The broader interpretation of the public duties that could form the foundation of a conspiracy to defraud charge was affirmed, clarifying the scope of the offence in this context.

Orders