Legal Research
Cases
Macdonald v The King

Macdonald v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 198 11 November 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Macdonald v R [2024] NSWCCA 198
Hearing dates: 16 October 2024
Decision date: 11 November 2024
Before: Leeming JA; Mitchelmore JA; Garling J
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal, confined to grounds 3-7, and refuse leave to appeal in respect of grounds 1 and 2.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – common law offence – wilful misconduct in public office – whether misdirection that illegitimate purpose must be driving force of impugned conduct – whether direction given by primary judge disadvantaged applicant – whether difference between purpose and motivation – whether findings of guilt in judge-alone trial unsafe – appeal against conviction dismissed
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against sentence – whether error in determining objective seriousness – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal against sentence dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Pt 4A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
Criminal Appeal Rules 1952, r 4
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 142.2
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133
Mining Act 1992 (NSW), ss 13, 22, 51
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15

Cases Cited:
Aravena v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 258; [2015] NSWCCA 288
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
EE v The King [2023] NSWCCA 188
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Jackson v R; Hakim v R (1988) 33 A Crim R 413
Macdonald v The King (sentence) [2023] NSWCCA 253
Macdonaldv R; Obeid v R; Obeid v R (2023) 112 NSWLR 402; [2023] NSWCCA 250
Maitland v R; Macdonald v R (2019) 99 NSWLR 376; [2019] NSWCCA 32
Mohana v The King [2023] NSWCCA 61
Mulato v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 282
Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 80 ALJR 614
Obeid v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 226; [2015] NSWCCA 309
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v Macdonald [2023] NSWSC 270
R v Macdonald (No 8); R v Maitland (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 1421; 303 A Crim R 230
R v Macdonald; R v Maitland (No 10 – verdict) [2022] NSWSC 1765
R v Nuttall; ex parte Attorney-General [2011] 2 Qd R 328; [2011] QCA 120
R v Quach (2010) 27 VR 310; [2010] VSCA 106
Scaysbrook v R [2022] NSWCCA 69; 297 A Crim R 176

Texts Cited:
B Selway, The Constitution of South Australia (Federation Press, 1997)
A Twomey, “Changing the Leader – The Constitutional Conventions Concerning the Resignation of Prime Ministers and Premiers” (2011) 39 Federal Law Review 329

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ian Michael Macdonald (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Mackay (Appellant)
B Hatfield SC, C Tran (Respondent)
Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/59940
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Macdonald v The King

Details

AGLC: Macdonald v The King [2024] NSWCCA 198
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 198
Decision Date: 11 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Macdonald v The King, the appellant brought an appeal against both his conviction and sentence on charges related to wilful misconduct in public office. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, who held a public office, was found guilty by a judge alone for engaging in conduct that was deemed to constitute wilful misconduct. The appeal centred on the primary judge's directions concerning the nature of the offence, specifically whether there was a misdirection regarding the requirement of an illegitimate purpose being the driving force behind the impugned conduct. Additionally, the appeal contested whether the primary judge's direction disadvantaged the applicant and whether there was a distinction between purpose and motivation in the context of the offence.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the common law offence of wilful misconduct in public office. The court had to determine whether the primary judge misdirected the jury, if such a misdirection occurred, whether it disadvantaged the appellant, and if there was a difference between purpose and motivation in the context of the offence. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the findings of guilt were unsafe and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The High Court held that the primary judge did not misdirect himself regarding the elements of the offence. The court clarified that the offence of wilful misconduct in public office does not require an illegitimate purpose to be the driving force of the impugned conduct, and that the distinction between purpose and motivation was not pertinent in this context. The court found that the findings of guilt were safe and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal against both conviction and sentence.

Orders