Regina (Cth) v Macarthur [2005] NSWCCA 65

Regina (Cth) v Macarthur [2005] NSWCCA 65

The appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds was made out. The proposed expert evidence was properly rejected as irrelevant, speculative and directed to the credibility of another witness, with no miscarriage of discretion shown. The s 128 certificates did not indemnify the Seymour witnesses from prosecution, and no unreliability warning was required because it was specifically not sought. The complaints about the summing up were not established. The Crown case that Concourse purchased marked fuel, sold it for on-road use, failed to pay the penalty surcharge, and that the appellant was knowingly concerned in that fraud was supported by ample evidence, including purchases from...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['knowingly Concerned in Defrauding the Commonwealth' 'marked Fuel and Penalty Surcharge' 'expert Evidence' 'relevance and Credibility Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 S 128 Certificates' 'jury Directions and Summing Up' 'unreasonable Verdict']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'evidence' 'revenue and Excise'] ['knowingly Concerned in Defrauding the Commonwealth' 'marked Fuel and Penalty Surcharge' 'expert Evidence' 'relevance and Credibility Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 S 128 Certificates' 'jury Directions and Summing Up' 'unreasonable Verdict']

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 Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the proposed evidence of Professor Barry Batts.' 'Whether the trial judge should have informed the jury that the evidence of Denys and John Seymour was tainted because they had received protection under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the trial judge erred by failing to warn the jury about the unreliability of the evidence of Denys Seymour or John Seymour.' 'Whether the summing up was unbalanced, misstated the evidence, went beyond the Crown case, or was procedurally unfair.' "Whether evidence concerning events on 5 May 1999 could support the appellant's knowledge during the indictment period."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds was made out. The proposed expert evidence was properly rejected as irrelevant, speculative and directed to the credibility of another witness, with no miscarriage of discretion shown. The s 128 certificates did not indemnify the Seymour witnesses from prosecution, and no unreliability warning was required because it was specifically not sought. The complaints about the summing up were not established. The Crown case that Concourse purchased marked fuel, sold it for on-road use, failed to pay the penalty surcharge, and that the appellant was knowingly concerned in that fraud was supported by ample evidence, including purchases from...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal should be dismissed.']