Legal Research
Cases
Maitland v The Queen; Macdonald v The Queen

Maitland v The Queen; Macdonald v The Queen

Link copied

Case Copied 25 February 2019 52 min read

Contents

On this page

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Maitland v R; Macdonald v R [2019] NSWCCA 32
Hearing dates: 13 & 14 November 2018
Date of orders: 25 February 2019
Decision date: 25 February 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ, Beazley P, Ward CJ in Eq, Hamill J, N Adams J at [1]
Decision:
The following orders are made in respect of each appellant:
1.   Appeal against conviction allowed.
2.   Conviction quashed.
3.   A new trial is ordered.
4.   The matter is listed for mention in the Supreme Court Arraignments List on 1 March 2019 or such other date as directed by the Criminal List Judge.
5. Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), on the ground set out in s 8(1)(e) of that Act, order that disclosure of [93]-[635] of these reasons (other than the orders themselves) be prohibited pending further order of the Court. This order does not apply to the disclosure of those paragraphs to the parties to these proceedings, their legal representatives or the Court.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – principal offender – 2 counts of wilful misconduct in public office – common law offence

CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – accessory – 2 counts accessory before the fact to wilful misconduct in public office

CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – directions to jury – misdirection – mental element of offence of misconduct in public office

CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict

CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against sentence – application for leave to appeal
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Code RSC 1985, c. C-46
Environmental Planning Act 1979 (NSW)
Mining Act 1992 (NSW)
Environmental Planning Act 1979 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2005] QB 73
Boulanger v R (2006) 2 SCR 49
Chew v R (1992) 173 CLR 626; [1992] HCA 18
Dickson v The Queen (2017) 94 NSWLR 476
Fazzolari v Parramatta City Council (2009) 237 CLR 603; [2009] HCA 12
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v Wong Lin Kay [2012] 2 HKLRD 898
Horne v Barber (1920) 27 CLR 494; [1920] HCA 33
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Macdonald v R; Maitland v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 736; [2016] NSWCCA 306
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150
Obeid v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 226; [2015] NSWCCA 309
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Bembridge (1785) 22 State Trials 1
R…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maitland v The Queen; Macdonald v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWCCA 32
Decision Date: 25 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals heard by the court involved two parties, Maitland and Macdonald, who were challenging their convictions and sentences in relation to their involvement in wilful misconduct in public office. Maitland, who was found to be the principal offender, and Macdonald, who was convicted as an accessory before the fact, both sought to overturn their convictions on various grounds. The appeals were heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the decisions made by the lower courts. The legal issues that the court had to address included the adequacy of the jury directions concerning the mental element of the offence of misconduct in public office, the possibility of a misdirection that might have led to an unreasonable verdict, and the overall fairness of the trial process that could amount to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, Macdonald appealed against his sentence, seeking leave to do so.

The court meticulously examined the trial judge's directions to the jury, focusing on whether they correctly explained the mental state required for the offence of misconduct in public office. The court also assessed whether any misdirection by the trial judge could have influenced the jury's decision-making process, potentially leading to an unreasonable verdict. Furthermore, the court considered whether the overall proceedings were fair and if any errors might have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In evaluating these aspects, the court took into account the evidence presented and the legal standards applicable to the offences in question.

In its decision, the court found that there were indeed errors in the jury directions that related to the mental element of the offence, which could have misdirected the jury. The misdirection was deemed significant enough to potentially affect the verdict. The court also concluded that these errors amounted to a miscarriage of justice, warranting the quashing of both Maitland's and Macdonald's convictions. With respect to the sentence appeal, the court determined that Macdonald's application for leave to appeal should be granted, allowing him to challenge the severity of his sentence in a higher court. The court's ruling led to the annulment of the convictions and provided Macdonald with the opportunity to appeal his sentence.

Orders