R v McFarlane [2024] NSWDC 193

R v McFarlane [2024] NSWDC 193

Count 1 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because, although someone by deception accessed Enrique Carriage's account and dishonestly obtained an advantage and caused him disadvantage, the evidence did not make the accused's guilt the only rational inference; it remained possible that another person, including the woman associated with the accused, committed the offence. Count 2 was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the judge accepted Carriage's evidence that the accused entered the dwelling, called him a snitch, produced a knife, chased him into the laundry and intentionally wounded him, and that evidence established entry with intent to intimidate, knowledge that persons were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judge Alone Trial; Verdicts Delivered
Outcome
Not guilty of Count 1; guilty of Count 2.
Legal Topics
['fraud' 'dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception' 'entering Dwelling House With Intent to Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'circumstances of Aggravation' 'judicial Notice' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'assessment of Witness Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['fraud' 'dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage by Deception' 'entering Dwelling House With Intent to Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'circumstances of Aggravation' 'judicial Notice' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'assessment of Witness Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judge Alone Trial; Verdicts Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused dishonestly obtained a financial advantage by deception by accessing Enrique Carriage's bank account between 17 October 2022 and 19 October 2022." 'Whether the accused entered a dwelling house at Moruya on 21 October 2022 with intent to commit the serious indictable offence of intimidation, knowing persons were present, and intentionally wounded Enrique Carriage.' 'Whether the evidence proved the identity of the person responsible for Count 1 beyond reasonable doubt.' "Whether Enrique Carriage's evidence concerning Count 2 should be accepted beyond reasonable doubt despite inconsistencies or absence of immediate complaint to police."]

Ratio Decidendi

Count 1 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because, although someone by deception accessed Enrique Carriage's account and dishonestly obtained an advantage and caused him disadvantage, the evidence did not make the accused's guilt the only rational inference; it remained possible that another person, including the woman associated with the accused, committed the offence. Count 2 was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the judge accepted Carriage's evidence that the accused entered the dwelling, called him a snitch, produced a knife, chased him into the laundry and intentionally wounded him, and that evidence established entry with intent to intimidate, knowledge that persons were...

Court Disposition

Not guilty of Count 1; guilty of Count 2.

Orders

  • ['Verdict: Not guilty of Count 1.' 'Verdict: Guilty of Count 2.']