Deception Case Laws

Question 1

Hayes v R - What is it about?

Answer 1

An important case, R v Hayes clarifies a number of important definitions not defined within the Crimes Act 1961. In 1997, Hayes, a primary teacher, was involved in a motor accident and injured her neck. She began receiving weekly compensation payments from ACC. She continued to submit medical certificates to ACC over an eight-year period to obtain payments. She certified she was not working and was unable work when in fact she was involved, successively, in running two companies and actively assisted her partner with physical work.

Hayes argument was that she honestly believed her declarations regarding her capacity to work related only to capacity to work in her pre-accident occupation as a teacher; further, that she honestly believed she was entitled to receive weekly compensation payments.

Through a misdirection given to the jury, the convictions for deception were set aside and a new trial ordered, however the discussion over the terms within the legislation has value.

Question 2

Hayes v R - (Pecuniary advantage)

Answer 2

A pecuniary advantage is “anything that enhances the accused’s financial position. It is that enhancement which constitutes the element of advantage”.

Question 3

Hayes v R - (Valuable consideration)

Answer 3

A valuable consideration is “anything capable of being valuable consideration, whether of a monetary kind or of any other kind; in short, money or money’s worth”.

Question 4

Hayes v R - (Use of a document)

Answer 4

An unsuccessful use of a document is as much use as a successful one. An unsuccessful use must not be equated conceptually with an attempted one. The concept of attempt relates to use not to the ultimate obtaining of a pecuniary advantage, which is not a necessary ingredient of the offence. Because the use does not have to be successful it may be difficult to draw a clear line between use and attempted use.

Question 5

R v Misic (Document)

Answer 5

Essentially a document is a thing which provides evidence or information or serves as a record.

Question 6

Morley v R - What was it about?

Answer 6

The case of Morley v R concluded that “The loss alleged by the victim must have been induced by, or caused in reliance, upon the deception. But the deception need not be the only operative factor, so long as it played a material part in occasioning the loss.”
The Court considered that the loss flowing from the deception should be assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position before the deception had been diminished or impaired.

There is no requirement in s240(1)(d) that the person who suffers the loss be the person who is deceived. Where the “loss” is more in the nature of a benefit than property, it may be preferable to charge under s240(1)(a).

Question 7

R v Morley - What is required to be proved?

Answer 7

The prosecution must prove that:
1. The loss was caused by a deception

2. It was reasonably foreseeable some more than trivial loss would occur, but
3. Need not prove the loss was intentionally caused.
   Thus, there must be loss to “any other person”, but there is no requirement that there be any benefit to anyone.

Question 8

R v Morley - (Intention to deceive)

Answer 8

An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practised in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception.

Question 9

What are the 5 ‘must know’ Deception case laws?

Answer 9

1. Hayes v R - (Pecuniary advantage)
2. Hayes v R - (Valuable consideration)
3. Hayes v R - (Use of a document)
4. R v Misic (Document)
5. R v Morley - (Intention to deceive)