LI V R SC 80/2007

LI V R SC 80/2007

By a majority the Court held that s256(1) must be read as it is written: 'use' includes making and selling a false document to obtain property or valuable consideration and does not require the purchaser to be deceived; therefore forging for sale to purchasers who know the falsity can constitute the s256(1) offence and the appellant's convictions under s256(1) were correctly upheld.

Citation
SC 80/2007
Parties
Appellant: Rebecca Katszi Li; Respondent (crown): The Queen
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court / Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions under s256(1) upheld by majority
Legal Topics
Forgery, Use of Forged Documents, Deceptive Intent, Crimes Act 1961 S256
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Forgery Use of Forged Documents Deceptive Intent Crimes Act 1961 S256

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebecca Katszi Li

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent (crown)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court / Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s256(1) requires an intention to use a false document deceptively (i.e. that the document be used as genuine) or whether selling a forged document to a purchaser who knows it is false falls within s256(1)
  2. 2 Whether the intent in s256(1) to 'use' includes intending to sell to an undeceived purchaser and whether the intended obtaining of property may be by another
  3. 3 Whether convictions under s256(1) could be substituted under s256(2) and adequacy of jury directions

Ratio Decidendi

By a majority the Court held that s256(1) must be read as it is written: 'use' includes making and selling a false document to obtain property or valuable consideration and does not require the purchaser to be deceived; therefore forging for sale to purchasers who know the falsity can constitute the s256(1) offence and the appellant's convictions under s256(1) were correctly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions under s256(1) upheld by majority

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Convictions under s256(1) affirmed