R v Thomas Douglas WATKINS [2006] NSWDC 147

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Thomas Douglas WATKINS [2006] NSWDC 147

HEARING DATE(S): 10/07/2006 - 03/08/2006 - Trial 10/07/2006 - 11/07/2006 - Application

JUDGMENT DATE: 11 July 2006

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 07/11/2006

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Application for permanent stay is refused

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Permanent Stay of Proceedings

CASES CITED: Crimes Act 1900

PARTIES: Crown Thomas Douglas Watkins

FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0742

COUNSEL: S. Higgins (Solicitor) - Crown A. Martin - Accused

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP Nikola Velcic & Associates (Watkins)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: I have before me an application for a permanent stay of proceedings made by Thomas Douglas Watkins who has been indicted on a series of forty-three charges, each relating to an allegation that he took money in effect not belonging to him, in the following way.

2 It is suggested that Mr Watkins who was employed by a company known as Tasman KB Pty Limited, provided to a person authorised to sign cheques on behalf of that company a series of forty-three cheques with words similar to "pay Westpac" on them. It is alleged by the Crown that after the signature was applied to the cheques, the accused has inserted between the word "pay" and the word "Westpac" his own name and then deposited the proceeds of those cheques to his own bank account.

3 This is a retrial and so it is possible to ascertain the accused's response to the Crown's allegations. The accused does not deny that he deposited the proceeds of the cheques to his personal bank account, but he says that this was done pursuant to an arrangement that he made with officers of the company and in particular two officers who were authorised to sign cheques on behalf of the company. The accused's defence is that at one stage he was having trouble getting signatures on the company cheques and one of the officers complained about the time it took for him to deal with cheques presented to him for signature. The suggestion made by the officers of the company was that they would sign cheques, the effect of which was to deposit large sums of money in the accused's personal bank account and that he would then pay creditors of the company from his personal bank account.