Brott v The Queen [1992] HCA 5

Brott v The Queen [1992] HCA 5

The applicant's attestation was not essential for validity and did not make or alter the character or legal effect of the guarantee; the false statement was about an extrinsic matter, not a lie about the document itself. Consequently, the conduct did not constitute forgery at common law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal; Appeal
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Conviction of forgery quashed.
Legal Topics
['forgery' 'intent to Defraud' 'false Attestation' 'common Law Offences']

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 / Application for Special Leave to Appeal; Appeal

  1. 1 ['Whether falsely attesting a signature in a guarantee, where witnessing is unnecessary for validity, constitutes forgery at common law' "Whether the applicant's signing as a witness to a purported signature was a 'false making' or 'alteration' of a document as forgery requires" 'Materiality of attestation in relation to forgery']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's attestation was not essential for validity and did not make or alter the character or legal effect of the guarantee; the false statement was about an extrinsic matter, not a lie about the document itself. Consequently, the conduct did not constitute forgery at common law.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Conviction of forgery quashed.

Orders

  • ['Set aside the decision and order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria.' 'Order that the application of the applicant be granted.' "Applicant's conviction of forgery be quashed." 'Verdict of acquittal be entered in respect of the forgery count.' 'Liberty to apply in respect of any consequential orders.']