Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2019

This matter concerned a reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to the High Court of Australia regarding the interpretation of section 11.2(1)(c) of the *Criminal Code Act 1995* (Cth) (the Code). The DPP sought clarification on whether the offence of "dishonestly destroying or damaging property" under section 11.2(1)(c) required proof that the accused intended to cause a dishonest gain for themselves or another person, or if it was sufficient to prove that the accused acted dishonestly in destroying or damaging the property.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the element of "dishonestly" in section 11.2(1)(c) of the Code applied to the act of destroying or damaging property, or if it also encompassed a requirement of dishonest intent to gain. Specifically, the court had to determine if the prosecution bore the onus of proving that the accused acted with the purpose of obtaining a dishonest gain, or if proof of dishonest conduct in the destruction or damage itself was sufficient for a conviction.

The High Court, comprising Kiefel CJ and Steward J, held that the word "dishonestly" in section 11.2(1)(c) modifies the verb "destroys or damages". Their Honours reasoned that the structure of the provision indicates that the dishonesty relates to the act of destruction or damage, not to a subsequent gain. They applied the principle of statutory interpretation that words in a statute should be given their ordinary and natural meaning, and that absent clear indication to the contrary, a modifier applies to the immediate verb or phrase it qualifies. Therefore, the prosecution was not required to prove a dishonest gain, but rather that the accused acted dishonestly in destroying or damaging the property.