Manolas v The Queen

Manolas appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. The appeal concerned the interpretation of the mental element required for the offence of dishonestly taking or using property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the intention to deprive were erroneous.

The central legal issue before the Court was the correct test to be applied when assessing whether an accused intended to permanently deprive another of property, particularly in relation to the phrase "regardless of the rights of the owners." The Court was required to determine whether the Crown needed to prove that the accused had no subjective regard for the owner's interests, or if the statutory definition of "depriving" sufficiently captured the necessary intention. The Court also considered whether the trial judge's reference to "due and appropriate regard" in the directions was appropriate and whether the entitlement of a director to control company property differed from that of an outsider.

The Court held that the statutory definition of "depriving" already encompasses the necessary intention, and there was no requirement to import an additional mental element. The phrase "regardless of the rights of the owners" does not necessitate proof that the accused had no subjective regard for the owner's interests. Instead, the extended definition of depriving, as provided by the relevant legislation, sufficiently describes the necessary intention. The Court distinguished the position of a director managing company property from that of an outsider, noting that a director is entitled to be in control and possession. The appeal was dismissed.