Sinanovic v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 292

Sinanovic v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 292

The indictment was sufficient as it identified the essential facts and apprised the appellant of the charge; naming the individuals to whom payment was to be made was a particular, not an essential element; the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the monies were given for a specific purpose under terms of s 178A, and the appellant fraudulently misappropriated them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['fraudulent Misappropriation' 'form of Indictment' 'particularity of Charges' 'interpretation of Crimes Act 1900 S.178 A']
['criminal Law'] ['fraudulent Misappropriation' 'form of Indictment' 'particularity of Charges' 'interpretation of Crimes Act 1900 S.178 A']

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 and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the indictment was invalid for failing to name the persons to whom payment was to be made under s 178A of the Crimes Act 1900' 'Whether the appellant was reasonably apprised of the charge against him' 'Whether the elements of the offence under s 178A were made out on the evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment was sufficient as it identified the essential facts and apprised the appellant of the charge; naming the individuals to whom payment was to be made was a particular, not an essential element; the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the monies were given for a specific purpose under terms of s 178A, and the appellant fraudulently misappropriated them.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']