Roberts v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 37

Roberts v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 37 - WASCA 2005 case summary — Zoe

[114]

"It's the prosecution case that the accused did not have such a belief in fact; she never in fact thought that her husband would consent to what she was doing and that support for that is to be found in the false cheque butts and the altered cheques and the manner of the alteration of the cheques. Further, the prosecution says that having regard to her evidence as to her husband's attitude to money matters and his concern as to the expenditure of his money, such a belief would not be a reasonable belief; that is, it could not reasonably be held in all the factual circumstances.

If you accepted Mr Roberts' evidence that he never authorised or consented to the accused replicating his signature on a cheque, you might consider that it would be difficult - and it's a matter entirely for you - to conclude that there would be any basis for such a belief. So that's the second element to the forgery; firstly, that the offender was the accused person; secondly, that the offender forged a record; that is, that she signed or altered a cheque without authority and without an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that she had such authority.

The third element is that she did so with an intent to defraud. I have already explained to you that intent is something that requires an inferential finding. Not only must the prosecution establish that the accused person forged a record but it must establish that she did so with an intent to defraud. An intention to deprive another person of a right or to cause that other person to act in any way to his detriment or prejudice is to intend to defraud that person.

The term 'defraud' generally means to deprive a person dishonestly of something which is his or of something which he or it is or would or might, but for the alleged conduct, be entitled. The prosecution case is that in replicating her husband's signature and/or in altering the cheques the accused had the intention of, firstly, gaining access to her husband's money without his consent and to give her the capacity to deal with it at will and contrary to his wishes or expectations and, secondly, that she had the intention, by carefully replicating his signature, in having BankWest, in the belief that the signature and/or alterations were those of Mr Roberts, deal with the cheques contrary to the agreed and established account policy of which the witness from BankWest told you."

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (339 paragraphs)

Roberts v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 37 (8 March 2005)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (29)