Croton v The Queen [1967] HCA 48

Croton v The Queen [1967] HCA 48

By majority, the convictions for larceny could not stand because the credit in the joint bank account was only a chose in action and was not capable of being stolen as money; the paper money or coins paid by the bank were voluntarily transferred by the bank, were not taken from Mrs. Webster's possession, and were not her or jointly owned property immediately before payment. The evidence did not establish that the applicant was a bailee of the specie or otherwise that the radical elements of larceny were present. Any possible offence would have been fraudulent misappropriation, not larceny, and no new trial was warranted after the Crown had proceeded on the unsupported larceny indictment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Larceny Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Convictions in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed with costs. Verdict conviction and sentence quashed.
Legal Topics
['larceny' 'joint Bank Accounts' 'joint Ownership' 'choses in Action' 'bailment' 'fraudulent Misappropriation' 'alternative Verdicts' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'banking Law'] ['larceny' 'joint Bank Accounts' 'joint Ownership' 'choses in Action' 'bailment' 'fraudulent Misappropriation' 'alternative Verdicts' 'new Trial']

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 Larceny Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Convictions in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence supported convictions for larceny where the applicant withdrew funds from a joint savings bank account and deposited them to his own accounts.' 'Whether a bank account credit or money paid by the bank on withdrawal was property susceptible of larceny by one joint owner from another.' 'Whether the applicant could be treated as a bailee of the paper money or coins withdrawn from the bank.' 'Whether the High Court should order a new trial or substitute an alternative verdict for fraudulent misappropriation.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the convictions for larceny could not stand because the credit in the joint bank account was only a chose in action and was not capable of being stolen as money; the paper money or coins paid by the bank were voluntarily transferred by the bank, were not taken from Mrs. Webster's possession, and were not her or jointly owned property immediately before payment. The evidence did not establish that the applicant was a bailee of the specie or otherwise that the radical elements of larceny were present. Any possible offence would have been fraudulent misappropriation, not larceny, and no new trial was warranted after the Crown had proceeded on the unsupported larceny indictment.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed with costs. Verdict conviction and sentence quashed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Verdict conviction and sentence quashed.']