Roberts v WA

(2005) 29 WAR 445; [2005] WASCA 37

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Forgery and uttering
3. › Intent to defraud
4. › Honest claim of right
5. › Whether jury direction required on honest belief in entitlement to property
6. › Whether absence of fraud where expenses inevitable
7. › Criminal Code (WA), ss 22, 24, 473(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Jury directions
4. › Implied authority
5. › Whether trial judge adequately directed jury on implied authority after jury raised issue
6. › Duty to relate law to facts
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Unreasonable or inconsistent verdicts
4. › Whether verdicts unreasonable where jury convicted on some counts and acquitted on others on common issue
5. › Criminal Code (WA), s 689(1)
1. Evidence
2. › Cross-examination
3. › Findings in prior civil proceedings
4. › Whether witness may be cross-examined in criminal trial about adverse findings made in prior civil proceedings
5. › Admissibility of findings as to credit versus as to truth
6. › Finality rule and exceptions

Quick Take

In forgery prosecutions under Criminal Code (WA) s 473, where the evidence raises the possibility that the accused honestly believed they were entitled to the property obtained, the trial judge must direct the jury that it cannot find an intent to defraud unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not honestly believe they were entitled to the property. Further, even absent such honest belief, there is no fraud if the alleged victim was not prejudiced — for example, if the money was used to pay expenses the victim would have met in any event. Findings of fact in prior civil proceedings are inadmissible as evidence of their truth in subsequent criminal proceedings in Western Australia, but cross-examination of a witness about adverse findings of discreditable conduct sufficiently connected with the matter in issue may be permitted in the court's discretion. Criminal prosecution is not an abuse of process merely because the same factual issue was determined in the accused's favour in prior civil proceedings.