WHARTON -v- THE QUEEN [2016] WASCA 21

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 21
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	25/01/2016
Case No:	CACR:209/2015	Heard:	18 JANUARY 2016
Coram:	MAZZA JA	Delivered:	18/01/16
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STEPHEN LYNNE WHARTON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Causing a loss to a Commonwealth entity with the intention of dishonesty Appeal against conviction Application for bail pending appeal, alternatively release on licence Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982 (WA), cl 4A pt C sch 1 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AP, s 20(1)(b) Criminal Code (Cth), s 135.1(3)
Case References:	Wharton v The Queen [2015] WASCA 133 Wharton v The Queen [No 2] [2015] WASCA 176

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : WHARTON -v- THE QUEEN [2016] WASCA 21 CORAM : MAZZA JA HEARD : 18 JANUARY 2016 DELIVERED : 18 JANUARY 2016 PUBLISHED : 25 JANUARY 2016 FILE NO/S : CACR 209 of 2015 BETWEEN : STEPHEN LYNNE WHARTON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : STONE DCJ

File No : IND 435 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Causing a loss to a Commonwealth entity with the intention of dishonesty - Appeal against conviction - Application for bail pending appeal, alternatively release on licence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA), cl 4A pt C sch 1
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AP, s 20(1)(b)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 135.1(3)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr L A Glenn

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Wharton v The Queen [2015] WASCA 133
Wharton v The Queen [No 2] [2015] WASCA 176

MAZZA JA

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 18 January 2016 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 Before me is the appellant's application filed on 8 January 2016 seeking this order:

Release on bail pending hearing of the appeal or in the alternative release on licence.

2 The application is supported by an affidavit made by the appellant on 6 January 2016, which includes eight attachments.

3 The application is opposed by the respondent.

4 There is a considerable history leading up to the present application. It is unnecessary to outline it all as it is set out in Wharton v The Queen [2015] WASCA 133 and Wharton v The Queen [No 2] [2015] WASCA 176. These reasons should be read in conjunction with the reasons of the court in those cases. It is enough to say the following.

5 On 2 April 2014, the appellant was convicted after a trial before a judge and jury in the District Court of three counts of causing the preparation and lodgement with the Australian…

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 Wharton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wharton v The Queen [2016] WASCA 21
Case: [2016] WASCA 21
Decision Date: 25 JANUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wharton, was convicted of causing a loss to a Commonwealth entity with the intention of dishonesty. The conviction was based on his role in a complex scheme involving fraudulent activities that resulted in financial loss to the Commonwealth. Wharton appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in several respects, including the interpretation of statutory provisions and the application of the law. In addition, Wharton applied for bail pending the appeal, alternatively seeking release on licence, on the basis that the appeal had a real prospect of success and that there were compelling reasons to be granted bail or licence.

The central legal issue in the appeal was the interpretation of the statutory provisions relating to causing a loss with the intention of dishonesty. The court had to determine whether the trial judge correctly applied the relevant statutory framework and whether Wharton's actions met the criteria for the offence. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether there were any errors in the trial process that warranted a fresh hearing. In relation to the application for bail, the court had to balance the appellant's right to appeal against a conviction with the interests of the community and the risk of reoffending.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the trial judge had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions. The evidence was deemed sufficient to establish that Wharton's actions constituted the offence as defined. The court also found that there were no errors in the trial process that would necessitate a retrial. Regarding the application for bail, the court determined that while the appeal had a real prospect of success, the interests of justice and the need to protect the community outweighed the appellant's right to immediate release. The application for bail was dismissed, and Wharton remained in custody pending the outcome of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.