Boyes v The Queen

In *Boyes v The Queen*, the appellant, Boyes, appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for the offence of obtaining financial advantage by deception. The prosecution's case was that Boyes had dishonestly represented to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia that he was entitled to a tax refund, thereby inducing the bank to advance him money. Boyes maintained that he had not acted dishonestly and that his belief in his entitlement to the refund was genuine.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by directing the jury that they could find dishonesty on the part of the appellant if he had acted in a way that an ordinary, decent person would regard as dishonest. This direction was challenged on the basis that it did not adequately convey the subjective element of dishonesty required by the relevant criminal provisions, which necessitate proof that the accused themselves believed their conduct to be dishonest.

The High Court, comprising Gummow and Hayne JJ, allowed the appeal. Their Honours held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was erroneous because it conflated the objective standard of what an ordinary, decent person would consider dishonest with the subjective standard of the accused's own knowledge and belief. The correct test for dishonesty in this context requires the prosecution to prove that the accused acted dishonestly according to their own standards, or that they were aware that their conduct would be regarded as dishonest by ordinary, decent people. The jury's verdict was therefore unsafe, as it was based on an incorrect understanding of the law.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and a new trial be ordered.