AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 3 August 2026

R v Colquhoun; R v Colquhoun

[2026] NSWDC 284

Fraud & dishonesty
JOINT CLAIM BY CO

Citation: R v Colquhoun; R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 284
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 3 August 2026
Judge(s): Abadee DCJ

Background

Following a judge-alone trial, two co-offenders, a mother (MC) and her son (AC), were convicted of fraud under s 192E(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). A third accused, MC's husband and AC's father (PC), was acquitted. The charges arose from a joint application to Land and Property Information (LPI) for title by adverse possession over a Glebe residential property belonging to the estate of a deceased man who had died in 1995.

The opportunity to make that claim had its origins in PC's work as a solicitor. From 1996, PC's law firm acted for a neighbour of the deceased who was a creditor of the estate, and PC's firm managed the property during that retainer. The estate's executrix and beneficiaries could not be located. From mid-2003, MC began exercising physical control over the property and spending money on its upkeep, and in 2010 AC moved in.

In November 2013, MC and AC lodged an adverse possession application with LPI, making a series of written representations. The court found those representations were deceptive. LPI granted the application in May 2015, and MC and AC obtained full registered title in June 2015. The verdict reasons are published separately as R v Colquhoun; R v Colquhoun; R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 198.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for each co-offender given the nature and objective seriousness of the fraud?
  • Where the value of property obtained cannot be precisely established, how should that uncertainty affect the sentencing exercise?
  • Whether the State was properly characterised as a victim of the fraud, or whether the offending was, in any relevant sense, "victimless"
  • Whether the fact that the estate's beneficiaries were unlocatable mitigated the objective seriousness of the offending
  • What weight could be given to out-of-court statements made by each co-offender to third parties (such as psychiatrists and character referees) where neither offender gave evidence at the sentencing hearing?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a variation to the standard ratio of non-parole period to head sentence
  • What sentencing disposition was appropriate for AC, including the suitability of a community corrections order

Decision

Objective seriousness and the nature of the fraud

The court characterised the offending as involving serial, deliberate written deceptions made to a government authority over an extended period. MC's deceptions spanned from November 2013 to March 2015; AC's were more limited, occurring in November 2013 and March 2014. The court found the opportunity to make the claim arose directly from PC's access to information about the property through his solicitor's retainer, giving the scheme a dimension of abuse of professional connection, even though PC himself was acquitted.

Value of property and the "victimless" crime argument

The court acknowledged that the precise value of the Glebe property at the time of the fraud was not established in evidence. Consistent with established principle, the court did not treat the absence of proved value as a factor that significantly reduced objective seriousness where the property was plainly of real worth. The court also rejected any framing of the offending as "victimless." Although the estate's executrix and beneficiaries could not be located, the State's integrity in administering the Torrens title system was engaged, and the unlocated beneficiaries retained cognisable interests. The court found a victim did exist, even if not present before it.

Evidentiary weight of out-of-court statements

Neither co-offender gave evidence at the sentencing hearing. Drawing on Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213, the court applied caution to self-serving statements each co-offender had made to psychiatrists or referees, particularly where those statements tended to enhance the other co-offender's position. The court gave greater weight to statements amounting to admissions, statements that were independently corroborated, or statements consistent with the logic of events.

Sentences imposed

The court sentenced MC to imprisonment of two years and four months, with a non-parole period of one year and two months, finding special circumstances based on her being a first-time offender of prior good character and her age-related circumstances. AC received a community corrections order for 18 months, with conditions including supervision by a community corrections officer and continuation of a psychological counselling program. The court rejected the submission that oversight by Queensland child protection authorities was an adequate substitute for formal supervision.

Orders Made

MC (Margaret Colquhoun):
- Sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months, commencing 3 August 2026 and expiring 2 December 2028
- Non-parole period of one year and two months, expiring 2 October 2027, after which she is eligible for release on parole
- Special circumstances found by reason of first-time offender status, prior good character, and age-related matters

AC (Andrew Colquhoun):
- Community corrections order commencing 3 August 2026 and expiring 2 February 2028
- Standard conditions: must not commit any offence; must appear before the court if called on during the term of the order
- Additional conditions: to continue a psychological counselling program as determined by a community corrections officer; to submit to supervision by a community corrections officer
- To make telephone contact with the Leichhardt Community Corrections Officer within 7 days of the orders

Key Takeaways

  • Fraud committed by making false representations to a government land registry authority to obtain title by adverse possession falls within the reach of s 192E(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), carrying a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment with no standard non-parole period.

  • Where the precise value of property obtained by fraud cannot be proved, the sentencing court does not treat that uncertainty as a significant mitigating factor if the property plainly had real worth.

  • The characterisation of estate-related property fraud as "victimless" was rejected: unlocatable beneficiaries and the integrity of the Torrens title system remain cognisable interests capable of founding victim status.

  • Under the principle confirmed in Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213, out-of-court statements made by an offender to a psychiatrist or referee carry reduced weight at sentencing where the offender did not give evidence and the statements were self-serving or operated to enhance a co-offender's position; such statements carry greater weight where they constitute admissions, are corroborated, or are consistent with the inherent probabilities of events.

  • Divergent sentences for co-offenders in the same fraud can be justified by differences in the extent and duration of each person's deceptive conduct, together with their individual subjective circumstances, including age, health, and prior character.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) , ss 3A, 5, 21A
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192E(1)(a)
- Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) , ss 31B, 45C

Cases
- Abellanoza v R [2021] NSWCCA 4
- Allen v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 11
- Attorney-General’s Application pursuant to s 108 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): Re Robert Burton (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCCA 87
- Cordoba v R [2021] NSWCCA 144
- Dimitriou v R [2025] NSWCCA 18
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Couper (2013) 229 A Crim R 115; [2013] VSCA 72
- Environment Protection Authority v Hanna [2018] NSWLEC 80
- Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216
- Guylas v Western Australia (2007) 178 A Crim R 539
- Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213
- Luong v R [2014] NSWCCA 129
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
- Markovic v The Queen (2010) 200 A Crim R 510; [2010] VSCA 105
- McMahon v R [2011] NSWCCA 147
- Newington v Windeyer (1985) 3 NSWLR 555
- Nosti v R [2024] NSWCCA 158
- R v Barrick (1985) 81 Cr App R 78
- R v Boughen [2012] NSWCCA 17
- R v Colquhoun; R v Colquhoun; R v Colquhoun [2026] NSWDC 198
- R v Curtis (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 866
- R v DB [2001] NSWCCA 320
- R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
- R v King [1987] 1 QB 547
- R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141
- R v Mungomery (2004) 151 A Crim R 376; [2004] NSWCCA 450
- The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
- R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin [2012] NSWCCA 225
- R v Pont (2000) 121 A Crim R 302; [2000] NSWCCA 419
- R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186
- R v Richard [2011] NSWSC 866
- R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284
- R v Stanbouli (2003) 141 A Crim R 531; [2003] NSWCCA 355
- R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
- Refina Pty Ltd v Binnie (2010) 15 BPR 28,633; [2010] NSWCA 192
- Regina v King (2004) 150 A Crim R 409; [2004] NSWCCA 444
- Sabra v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 38
- Sidoti v Hardy (2021) 105 NSWLR 1
- Sigalla v R [2021] NSWCCA 22
- Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260
- The Queen v Guode (2020) 267 CLR 141
- Tsoumbanellis v R [2025] NSWCCA 107
- Whyte v R [2019] NSWCCA 218