Criminal Liability under Crimes Act 1900

CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
The fact in this case is that David agrees to help Jack on the weekend to install new motor
to a car that Jack has been restoring in exchange for a payment of $500. On the weekend David
goes to Jack’s house to help him install the motor. Jack informs David that he is short on cash
and could send the agreed upon price to the bank account of David. Next day David receives
$5,000 on his bank account which he realizes as a mistake but decides to keep it. When Jack asks
David to return the extra money David refuses. Jack threatens David who ignores the threat. A
few nights later Jack comes to David’s house and attacks him with a hammer.
The issue in the case is whether David or Jack has any criminal liability under the
‘Crimes Act 1900’.
The rules that the case would need to be following are under the provisions of Crimes Act
19001. Under the Crimes Act section 192E a fraud can be defined as a person committing the
offense of fraud by any deceptive or dishonest conduct that result in him receiving any financial
advantage or property or causing any kind of disadvantage financially to anyone. The maximum
amount of penalty mentioned under the section for committing the offense of fraud is 10 years of
imprisonment. In the case R v Ho2 it was decided by the court that the obtaining of the financial
advantage should be as result of deception by the accused.
The Crimes Act 1900 Section 192D describes obtaining of financial advantage as
obtaining any kind of advantage financially for oneself or for someone else or making any
person commit an act that would result in any advantage financially for oneself or for someone
else or keeping to oneself a financial advantage that a person has. In this section causing
financial disadvantage can be described as causing any type of disadvantage to another person
1 Crimes Act 1900
2 R v Ho (1989) 39 A Crim R 145

2CRIMINAL LAW
financially or making any person commit any act that would be resulting in the suffering of
another person from a disadvantage financially.
Section 124 of the Crimes Act 1900
defines ‘fraudulent appropriation’ as the act of keeping someone else’s property for their own
use fraudulently even though the property was not taken originally with any intention of
fraudulence. The maximum penalty for this offense mentioned in this section is either 2 years of
imprisonment or 20 penalty unit fine or both.
Under the provisions of common law for unlawful violence imminence is needed to be
apprehended as discussed in the case Zanker v Vartzokas3. The question of imminence for threats
made over phone has been a topic of discussion for the courts in many cases. In case of Barton v
Armstrong4 it was held by the court that threats over phone could be taken as sufficient to be
raising fear of imminent violent in the mind of the person to whom the threat has been given.
However in the case R v Knight5 the imminence of threat over telephone was rejected by the
court. in this case it was held that for threats over telephone to be sufficient for criminal liability
the accused would be needing to have some kind of power over the other person and would be in
a position to be carrying out the threat.
Under the Crimes Act 1900 section 59 the provision for the assault resulting in actual
bodily harm is mentioned. Under the provision of this section in case if an assault by a person to
other results in actual bodily harm, the person committing the assault would be liable for a
penalty of 5 years of imprisonment. Actual bodily harm has been described by the NSW Court of
3 Zanker v Vartzokas [1988] 34 A Crim R 11
4 Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 452; NSWSC
5 R v Knight [1988] 35 A Crim R 314

3CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Appeal in the case McIntyre v R6 as serious physical injury that causes wounding by
way of an unlawful act of force applied to another person intentionally or recklessly without the
consent of the other person.
Under the provision of section 33 of the act for an act to be considered as assault under
the Crimes Act 1900 there should be the intention of the person for using unlawful force on any
person (mens rea) as discussed in the case MacPherson v Brown7 and an application of the
intention for causing grievous bodily hurt (actus reus) as discussed in the case DPP v Smith8.
Under the Crimes Act 1900 section 33 a person can be held guilty for the offence of assault that
caused grievous bodily harm if the person caused any grievous bodily harm or any wound on
another person with an intention of causing bodily harm of grievous nature. The maximum
penalty charged for an offence under this section is 25 years of imprisonment.
Under the Crimes Act section 112 if a person found guilty of breaking into any building
to commit any serious offence of indictable nature the person would be held liable for a penalty
of 14 years of imprisonment. In the cases Stanford v R9 and R v Smith10the provisions of section
112 for breaking and entering in a building for committing serious indictable offences have been
discussed.
Under the Crimes Act 1900 section 114 the maximum penalty charged for an intention of
committing any indictable offence while being armed is 7 years imprisonment. Under the
provision of the section any person having in his possession any weapon or instrument without
any lawful reason enters in any part of a building or land with an intention to commit any offence
6 McIntyre v R [2009] NSWCCA 305
7 MacPherson v Brown [1975] 12 SASR 184
8 DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
9 Stanford v R [2007] NSWCCA 370
10 R v Smith [1827] 1 Mood 178