Rundle v R [2013] NSWCCA 200

Rundle v R [2013] NSWCCA 200

There was ample evidence on which the jury could find the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the falsification of mezzanine funding figures and the profit statement being false and misleading to the knowledge of the appellant. The statements were materially relied upon in the finance application context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'false or Misleading Statements' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'materiality of Statements']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'false or Misleading Statements' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'materiality of Statements']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether jury verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence' 'Whether statements made by the appellant were false or misleading in a material particular to his knowledge' 'Materiality of statements made by appellant']

Ratio Decidendi

There was ample evidence on which the jury could find the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the falsification of mezzanine funding figures and the profit statement being false and misleading to the knowledge of the appellant. The statements were materially relied upon in the finance application context.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction be dismissed']