R v Ernest William Madden

In the case of R v Ernest William Madden, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal against conviction on three counts of procuring the delivery of a bank cheque for $397,500 under false pretences with intent to defraud and one count of conspiring to defraud a lending institution and/or the Inland Revenue Department. The appellant, Madden, was effectively in control of two companies, Games Machines New Zealand Limited and Ice, and had a significant role in negotiating transactions on their behalf. The transactions in question involved the sale of gaming machines and the purchase of a block of land in Christchurch. Madden was convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in respect of the first three counts and 9 months in respect of the last, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Madden appealed against his conviction on the first three counts only.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether Madden made false representations, whether he knew they were false at the time of making them, and whether these false representations were an effective cause of the accused’s obtaining the property, namely the bank cheque. The Court of Appeal examined the evidence and arguments presented by both the appellant and the Crown. The Court found that the District Court Judge had sufficient evidence to conclude that Madden knew the payments under the Instrument by Way of Security had not been made and that these payments were an effective cause of obtaining the bank cheque. The Court also found that Madden’s conduct, including his nodding in agreement, constituted a false representation and that this representation was made with the requisite knowledge of its falsity. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that due diligence should absolve him of responsibility for the false representation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the District Court. The Court emphasized the credibility of the Crown witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Judge’s findings. The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against conviction on the first three counts was dismissed.