Mathews v The Queen

(2001) 24 WAR 438; [2001] WASCA 264

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Fraud
3. › Intent to defraud
4. › Distinction between subjective intent under s 409(1)(c) and objective reasonableness under s 24 defence
5. › Whether trial judge misdirected jury by conflating subjective and objective requirements
6. › Criminal Code (WA), ss 24, 409(1)(c)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Directions to jury
3. › Good character direction
4. › Whether direction required where credibility of accused's evidence critical to defence
5. › Circumstances in which good character direction must be given
1. Criminal Law
2. › Directions to jury
3. › Identification of real issues
4. › Obligation of trial judge to identify real issues and explain how law applies to facts of particular case
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › New trial
4. › Discretion whether to order new trial or enter verdict of acquittal
5. › Whether unjust to permit Crown to conduct case on different basis from original trial
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 689(2)

Quick Take

In fraud prosecutions under s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (WA), the trial judge should generally not direct the jury on the s 24 defence, because s 24 introduces an objective reasonableness requirement that is unnecessary to innocence under s 409(1)(c), which requires proof of actual subjective intent to defraud. Where the s 24 defence is raised, great care must be taken to avoid confusing the objective reasonableness standard with the subjective intent element. A good character direction is required at minimum where the defence depends on the subjective state of the accused's mind and the accused has given evidence claiming a belief consistent with innocence.