WATSON -v- PATERSON [2016] WASC 357

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 357
Case No:	SJA:1017/2016	Heard:	2 AUGUST 2016
Coram:	BANKS-SMITH J	Delivered:	7/11/16
No of pages:	22	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	COLIN DAVID GRAHAM WATSON MICHAEL JAMES PATERSON
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Fraud Where resetting of balance of electronic card Where for research purposes Where deceit admitted Whether intention to defraud
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 8(1), s 9, s 14(2) Criminal Code (WA), s 409(1)
Case References:	Hunter v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 184 Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7; (1998) 192 CLR 493 Zaburoni v The Queen [2016] HCA 12; (2016) 256 CLR 482

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : WATSON -v- PATERSON [2016] WASC 357 CORAM : BANKS-SMITH J HEARD : 2 AUGUST 2016 DELIVERED : 7 NOVEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : SJA 1017 of 2016 BETWEEN : COLIN DAVID GRAHAM WATSON

Appellant

AND

MICHAEL JAMES PATERSON

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P G MALONE

File No : PE 45643 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Fraud - Where resetting of balance of electronic card - Where for research purposes - Where deceit admitted - Whether intention to defraud

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 8(1), s 9, s 14(2)

Criminal Code (WA), s 409(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R K Williamson

Respondent : Mr B M Murray

Solicitors:

Appellant : Ross K Williamson

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Hunter v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 184
Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7; (1998) 192 CLR 493
Zaburoni v The Queen [2016] HCA 12; (2016) 256 CLR 482

BANKS-SMITH J

Summary

1 The appellant, Colin Watson, seeks leave to appeal against a conviction, after trial, of one count of obtaining a benefit by fraud contrary to s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA). The benefit obtained was free train and bus travel, said to be to the value of $54.12. Mr Watson was fined $750 and a spent conviction was recorded.

2 There are 11 proposed grounds of appeal, some with several particulars. Additional grounds were not pursued at the hearing. There is an overarching theme. It is contended that the learned magistrate erred in drawing an inference that Mr Watson had the requisite intention to defraud. The grounds attack the various findings upon which it is said the magistrate relied in drawing the necessary inference.

The circumstances of the offence

3 The following matters are not relevantly in dispute.

4 Mr Watson and a co accused, Mr Carruthers, were university students. Both were members of a university 'hackers' club. Mr Watson was studying computer science…

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 Watson v Paterson

Details

AGLC: Watson v Paterson [2016] WASC 357
Case: [2016] WASC 357
Decision Date: 7 NOVEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Watson versus Paterson involved an appeal against a conviction for fraud. The defendant, Watson, had reset the balance of an electronic card for research purposes, a fact he admitted. The central issue in this appeal was whether Watson's actions constituted an intention to defraud, despite the absence of any personal gain. The court was tasked with determining if the deceit admitted by Watson, coupled with the resetting of the card balance, was sufficient to establish the requisite intent to commit fraud under Australian criminal law.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the interpretation of intent in the context of fraud and whether the act of resetting the card balance for research purposes could be considered fraudulent. The court examined whether Watson's actions were merely deceitful or if they amounted to an intent to cause financial harm or deprivation, which is a critical element in fraud offences. The court also considered whether the absence of personal gain negated the possibility of intent to defraud.

The court ultimately concluded that Watson's actions, while deceitful, did not demonstrate an intention to cause financial harm or deprivation. The court found that the absence of personal gain was a significant factor in determining the absence of intent to defraud. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the original conviction but emphasizing the importance of intent in fraud cases. The decision underscored the necessity for a clear demonstration of intent to cause financial harm in establishing fraud.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

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.