Sayed v The Queen

(2012) 220 A Crim R 236; [2012] WASCA 17

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Fraud offences
3. › Intent to defraud
4. › Whether subjective intention proved
5. › Defence of mistake of fact
6. › Whether trial judge required to direct jury on s 24 Criminal Code (WA)
7. › Whether proof of fault elements of offence necessarily negatives defence of mistake
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 24, s 409(1)(c)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Commonwealth offences
3. › Dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception
4. › Defence of mistake of fact under s 9.1 Criminal Code (Cth)
5. › Whether s 9.1 superfluous where fault elements require proof of intention or recklessness
6. › Criminal Code (Cth), s 9.1, s 134.2(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Directions to jury
3. › Inferring intention from circumstances
4. › Whether direction conveyed entirely objective view of intention
5. › Requirement to consider accused's sworn evidence of honest belief
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Federal offences
4. › Non-parole period and pre-release period under recognisance release order
5. › Ratio of non-parole period to head sentence
6. › Whether total effective pre-release period manifestly excessive
7. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 19AB, 19AC

Quick Take

Where the prosecution must prove subjective intention to defraud or dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt, proof of those fault elements necessarily negatives the defence of mistake of fact under s 24 of the Criminal Code (WA) or s 9.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth), and it is generally unnecessary and potentially confusing for the trial judge to direct on those defences. A total effective pre-release or non-parole period of approximately 79% of the total effective head sentence was held to be manifestly excessive for fraud offences of this kind.