Ali v WA

[2005] WASCA 90

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Application for leave to appeal against conviction
4. › Whether verdicts inconsistent
5. › Conviction of fraud on one count and stealing by direction on remaining counts
6. › Whether proper basis to reconcile verdicts
7. › Criminal Code (WA), ss 371, 373, 378(9), 409
1. Criminal Law
2. › Fraud
3. › Intent to defraud
4. › Whether direction on subjective intention adequate
5. › Whether carelessness or unreasonable belief equated with intent to defraud
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 409(1)(d)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Alternative verdicts
5. › Whether alternative charges of stealing by direction should have been left to jury
6. › Whether changed circumstances from first trial justified leaving alternatives
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 599(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Order of consideration of charges
5. › Whether direction in accordance with Stanton v The Queen
6. › Jury free to organise deliberations but must deliver verdict on primary charge first

Quick Take

A verdict of guilty of fraud on one count is not inconsistent with verdicts of guilty of the lesser alternative of stealing by direction on other counts where the chronological sequence of events provides additional evidence of intent to defraud for the later count. A trial judge at a retrial is not bound by a ruling of the first trial judge declining to leave alternative verdicts to the jury, particularly where circumstances have changed.