Seems to be more of an issue with the lower court judge than the lawyers (from an article describing his original conviction) >Justice Leeming found Mr Moore

Seems to be more of an issue with the lower court judge than the lawyers (from an article describing his original conviction) >Justice Leeming found Mr Moore acted "extremely foolishly" and dishonestly. He had known of the error and continued to borrow knowing he could not pay the money back. >"I must confess to some puzzlement at the apparent dismay of the prisoner and people who support him that he was found guilty," Judge Norrish had said, describing the Crown case as "irresistible". Seems like the judge knew exactly the facts and managed to come up with the wrong decision. It does sound like the lawyers weren't very good, but you also need a pretty bad judge to go in there and come out with the wrong decision despite knowing all the facts. Maybe the defense could have brought in more case law, but most judges don't read it except on appeal. Just to add, fraud is an intentional crime, this means the prosecutor must prove intent at every step, including that he had intent to obtain money from the bank through fraud. How the judge missed what a first year law student would have known just speaks to me about the incompetence of the judiciary. It's not like this man's lawyers failed to point that out to the trial judge.