Tringrove v Tasmania

The case of *Tringrove v Tasmania* concerned appeals by the appellants against their convictions for fraudulently or deceptively obtaining financial benefits. The Crown’s contention was that certain itemised invoices submitted by the appellants were wholly dishonest. The central question for the court was whether the appellants could be found guilty if an invoice was only partly dishonest. The appeals were heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation of the offence of fraudulently or deceptively obtaining a financial benefit. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the offence required the entirety of an invoice to be dishonest, or if a conviction could be sustained where only a portion of the claimed amount was fraudulent. This involved considering the nature of the "financial benefit" obtained and the requisite mental element for the offence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeals. It reasoned that the offence required proof that the accused obtained a financial benefit by deception, and that the benefit obtained was the entire amount claimed in the invoice. If an invoice contained both legitimate and dishonest claims, the benefit obtained was not wholly dishonest. Therefore, the convictions on counts 1 to 32 inclusive were quashed, and a new trial was ordered for these counts. The sentence was also quashed, and the appellant was to be re-sentenced by the Court of Criminal Appeal on counts 33 to 44 inclusive. In a separate but related appeal, the convictions and sentence of the appellant in Appeal 6/2014 (Fahey) were also quashed, with a new trial ordered on all counts.