Webster v Tasmania; Tasmania v Webster - [2018] TASCCA 7

[2018] TASCCA 7

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Webster v Tasmania; Tasmania v Webster [2018] TASCCA 7

PARTIES: WEBSTER, Hayley Margaret
v

STATE OF TASMANIA
STATE OF TASMANIA
v
WEBSTER, Hayley Margaret

FILE NOS: CCA 1969/2017

CCA 2006/2017

DELIVERED ON:  14 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  13 April 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt and Geason JJ, Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular grounds of appeal – Inconsistent verdicts – Jury verdict of guilty on some counts and not others – Counts arising out of same circumstances – Verdict of not guilty to 95 counts of computer-related fraud, guilty to 8 counts – Where an arrangement to transfer funds was asserted by appellant for all counts on indictment – Verdicts factually inconsistent – Reasonable explanation consistent with innocence – Verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – Convictions quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered.

Criminal Code (Tas) ss 257B, 401(1)(b).
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied.
Aust Digest Criminal Law [3478]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant/Respondent:                   K L Baumeler
             Respondent/Appellant:                   T Jacobs
Solicitors:
             Appellant/Respondent:                   Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent/Appellant:                   Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASCCA 7
Number of paragraphs: 68

Serial No 7/2018
File Nos CCA 1969/2017
CCA 2006/2017

HAYLEY MARGARET WEBSTER v STATE OF TASMANIA
STATE OF TASMANIA v HAYLEY MARGARET WEBSTER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
GEASON J
MARTIN AJ
14 May 2018

Orders of the Court

Leave to appeal granted.

Appeal allowed.

Convictions on indictment 3606/2016 are quashed and verdicts of acquittal substituted.

Serial No 7/2018
File Nos CCA 1969/2017
CCA 2006/2017

HAYLEY MARGARET WEBSTER v STATE OF TASMANIA
STATE OF TASMANIA v HAYLEY MARGARET WEBSTER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

ESTCOURT J
14 May 2018

Background

For reasons that will appear, I am of the view that the appellant, Hayley Margaret Webster, requires the leave of the Court in order to be able to bring her appeal in this case. I will nonetheless refer to her as the appellant and not the applicant as, for my part, I would give any leave required.
The appellant was arraigned upon an indictment containing 104 counts of computer-related fraud contrary to s 257B of the Criminal Code, said to have been committed against her employer, Darren Douglas Lawless, between April 2011 and September 2013. The total amount alleged to have been appropriated by the appellant was $180,147.12.
Upon her trial the State abandoned count 84, and ultimately the jury returned verdicts of not guilty to 95 counts, and verdicts of guilty to only eight counts, totalling $17,712.34. It is convenient to identify those eight counts now. They were counts 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33 and 86.
The appellant seeks to appeal against her subsequent conviction on those counts on the ground that the jury's verdicts are unsafe and unsatisfactory in all of the circumstances, "especially in light of the jury's verdicts of not guilty on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Webster v Tasmania; Tasmania v Webster and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] TASCCA 7
Decision Date: 14 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Webster appealed against his convictions in the Supreme Court of Tasmania for eight counts of computer-related fraud, having been acquitted on ninety-five similar counts arising from the same circumstances. Tasmania cross-appealed against the acquittal on those ninety-five counts. The central issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and, if so, whether those inconsistencies rendered the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's finding of guilt on eight counts and acquittal on ninety-five counts, all stemming from an alleged arrangement to transfer funds, demonstrated a fundamental flaw in the jury's reasoning. Specifically, the court had to consider if there was a reasonable explanation for the inconsistent verdicts that was consistent with the appellant's innocence, and if such inconsistency rendered the guilty verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory, warranting their quashing.

The court reasoned that the jury's verdicts were factually inconsistent, as the asserted arrangement to transfer funds was the basis for all counts. The acquittal on the majority of counts suggested the jury did not accept the prosecution's case in its entirety, yet the conviction on the remaining counts implied acceptance of the same core factual assertion. The court found no rational basis for the jury to distinguish between the counts in the manner it did, leading to the conclusion that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and verdicts of acquittal were entered on all counts.

Orders