Re Burstall, James Evan Robert [1978] FCA 13

Re Burstall, James Evan Robert [1978] FCA 13

Although the defendant had suffered mental disturbance after events in 1969 and 1970, the Court found that by 9 November 1970 he had sufficiently recovered to understand the statement of affairs and know what he was doing. The insertions, amendments and affidavit completed by him showed that the document registered with him. It was more probable than not that he consciously turned his mind to whether to include his interest under his mother's will and decided to omit it. The defence under s. 265(9) therefore failed, and the defendant was guilty of the offence charged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 1978
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Offence Under Bankruptcy Act 1966, S. 265(1)(f) / Hearing of Information After Plea of Not Guilty; Conviction and Recognizance Order
Outcome
Defendant convicted of the offence charged and released without sentence upon giving a recognizance for good behaviour for two years.
Legal Topics
['omitting a Material Particular From Statement of Affairs' 'intent to Defraud Creditors' 'mental Disorder and Criminal Responsibility' 'burden of Proof for Statutory Defence']
['bankruptcy' 'criminal Law'] ['omitting a Material Particular From Statement of Affairs' 'intent to Defraud Creditors' 'mental Disorder and Criminal Responsibility' 'burden of Proof for Statutory Defence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Offence Under Bankruptcy Act 1966, S. 265(1)(f) / Hearing of Information After Plea of Not Guilty; Conviction and Recognizance Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant, being a bankrupt, omitted a material particular from a statement relating to his affairs by failing to disclose his interest under the will of Eva Burstall.' 'Whether the defendant proved under s. 265(9) that the omission was made without intent to defraud any of his creditors.' "Whether the defendant's alleged mental disorder meant he did not understand what he was doing or lacked any guilty intention necessary to constitute the offence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant had suffered mental disturbance after events in 1969 and 1970, the Court found that by 9 November 1970 he had sufficiently recovered to understand the statement of affairs and know what he was doing. The insertions, amendments and affidavit completed by him showed that the document registered with him. It was more probable than not that he consciously turned his mind to whether to include his interest under his mother's will and decided to omit it. The defence under s. 265(9) therefore failed, and the defendant was guilty of the offence charged.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted of the offence charged and released without sentence upon giving a recognizance for good behaviour for two years.

Orders

  • ['That the defendant be convicted of the offence charged.' 'That, upon the defendant giving security in his own recognizance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for the period of two years from the date of this order, he be released without any sentence being passed upon him in respect of the charge; and that...