Kennison v Daire [1986] HCA 4

Kennison v Daire [1986] HCA 4

The Bank did not consent to the appellant's withdrawal because his account had been closed; the automatic teller machine could not itself give consent and the Bank's consent could not realistically be inferred for withdrawals by a card-holder with no current account. The conviction for larceny was therefore not displaced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['larceny' 'consent to Taking' 'automatic Teller Machine Withdrawal' 'fraudulent Intent']
['criminal Law'] ['larceny' 'consent to Taking' 'automatic Teller Machine Withdrawal' 'fraudulent Intent']

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

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Bank consented to the appellant taking $200 from an automatic teller machine after he had closed his account but retained his EasyBank card.' "Whether an automatic teller machine programmed to dispense money should be treated as having authority to give the Bank's consent to the withdrawal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank did not consent to the appellant's withdrawal because his account had been closed; the automatic teller machine could not itself give consent and the Bank's consent could not realistically be inferred for withdrawals by a card-holder with no current account. The conviction for larceny was therefore not displaced.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']