Citation: R v Colquhoun; R v Colquhoun; R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 198
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 June 2026
Judge: Abadee DCJ
Background
The accused were a solicitor (PC), his wife (MC), and their son (AC). In the early 1990s, PC acted for a neighbour whose property adjoined a Glebe terrace house owned by a man who died in 1995, leaving no located next of kin. PC's retainer included searching for beneficiaries of the deceased's estate, but those searches were unsuccessful.
After PC's client died in 2003, MC began improving, maintaining, and ultimately leasing the adjoining property belonging to the deceased estate. Some years later, AC and his partner moved into the property. MC and AC then applied for title by adverse possession (a legal mechanism by which a person who has openly and continuously occupied land for a sufficient period can claim ownership of it).
In support of that application, MC and AC lodged statutory declarations with Land and Property Information (LPI), a NSW government agency. The Crown alleged that those declarations contained false statements about when and how MC and AC had entered physical possession of the property, and that the family thereby obtained real property belonging to the deceased estate by deception and dishonesty, contrary to s 192E(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Legal Issues
- Whether statements made in the statutory declarations lodged in support of the adverse possession application were objectively false and therefore constituted a "deception" within the meaning of s 192B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Whether the mental element of deception was established: did MC and AC know the representations were false or were reckless as to their truth?
- Whether the property was "obtained by" the deception, requiring proof of a causal link between the deceptive statements and the decision-maker's grant of title
- Whether the causal requirement must be satisfied separately for each individual deception where multiple deceptions are relied upon
- Whether, given that the decision-maker was an officer of a government agency, any special considerations applied to causation
- Whether the property was obtained "dishonestly," applying both limbs of the dishonesty test
- Whether PC was liable as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise with MC and AC
Decision
Issue 1: Obtaining property belonging to another
The court found that title to the Glebe property vested in MC and AC as a result of the successful primary application to LPI. Because the property had belonged to the deceased estate throughout the relevant period, the first element of the fraud offence was established.
Issue 2: Deception (physical element)
Abadee DCJ examined each statutory declaration in detail. The court found that MC made multiple false representations, including assertions about the date on which she and AC entered actual physical possession (stated as on or about 1 November 2000, which the court found to be false) and about the state of the property at that time. AC similarly made a false representation in his own statutory declaration. The court found that these statements were objectively deceptive within the meaning of ss 192B and 192C of the Crimes Act.
Issue 3: Deception (mental element)
The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that MC knew the representations were false. On AC's position, despite his election not to give or call evidence and the absence of an electronically recorded interview, the court found that AC also knew the relevant representations were false and intended LPI to act upon them in deciding to accede to the application.
Issue 4: Causation ("obtained by deception")
Abadee DCJ addressed the legal test for causation in fraud cases, including the significance of the decision-maker being an officer of a government agency. The court accepted that Mr Blair, the LPI officer who approved the primary application in May 2015, was the identified decision-maker. On the evidence, the court was satisfied that the deceptions were a significant and substantial cause of his decision to grant title. The court also held that, where multiple deceptions are relied upon, it is not necessary to prove that each individual deception independently caused the outcome; it is sufficient that the deceptions, taken together, were a significant and substantial cause of the decision.
Issue 5: Dishonesty
The court applied the two-limb test for dishonesty. On the first limb, the court found MC did not genuinely believe she was acting lawfully. On the second limb, the court found she knew that ordinary people would regard her conduct as dishonest. The same conclusions were reached in respect of AC. Neither accused established any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence on the dishonesty element.
Issue 6: Joint criminal enterprise (PC)
The court considered the Crown's case that PC participated in a joint criminal enterprise with MC and AC. The reasons in the provided text do not contain the final verdict findings on PC's individual charge, and the full disposition for all three accused is not fully reproduced in the available text. The court's findings on MC and AC, as outlined above, were clearly established to the requisite standard.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
-
The District Court held that, where multiple deceptive statements are relied upon to establish fraud under s 192E(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the prosecution need not prove that each individual deception independently caused the decision-maker to act; a significant and substantial causal contribution across the deceptions collectively is sufficient.
-
Where the identified decision-maker is an officer of a government agency, that fact is relevant to the causation inquiry but does not alter the fundamental test: the deception must be a significant and substantial cause of the decision to grant the property.
-
A person who adopts false representations made jointly on their behalf by a co-accused, and makes their own false representations in supporting documents, can be found to have personally perpetrated deceptions for the purpose of a fraud charge, even where they did not author the primary statutory declarations.
-
Under the two-limb dishonesty test, a finding that an accused knew their representations to a government agency were false, and intended those representations to induce a favourable decision that would result in acquiring property rights at the expense of another, is capable of grounding satisfaction on both limbs beyond reasonable doubt.
-
An accused's election not to give evidence or participate in a police interview does not constitute evidence of guilt and cannot fill gaps in the Crown case; however, the court noted that such an election may, in a practical sense, make it harder for that accused to identify a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4, 4B, 192B, 192C, 192E
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 136
- Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 27, 28, 38
- Oaths Act 1900 (NSW), s 25
- Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW), s 75
- Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
- Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 82
Cases
- Bazouni v R [2021] NSWCCA 256
- Blackwell v R (2011) 81 NSWLR 119
- Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2002) 202 CLR 45
- Decision Restricted [2025] NSWCCA 210
- Dimitriou v R [2025] NSWCCA 18
- Duncan v ICAC [2016] NSWCA 143
- Evans v Smith [2025] NSWCA 102
- Flack v R [2011] NSWCCA 167
- Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
- Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215
- Harris v Wogama Pty Ltd [1969] 1 NSWR 245
- Hartnett v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes [2026] NSWCA 35
- Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6
- I & L Securities v HTW Valuers (2002) 210 CLR 109
- *J