Manolas v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr Manolas, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute concerned the interpretation of the offence of stealing under the *Criminal Code* (NT), specifically the element requiring proof of an intention to treat property as one's own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights. The applicant, a director and shareholder of Coronation Drive Pty Ltd, was accused of dishonestly appropriating company funds.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the "regardless of the rights of the owner" limb of the stealing offence were misleading. The applicant contended that the trial judge's directions, particularly in light of the Crown Prosecutor's closing address, risked leading the jury to believe that an objective assessment of the applicant's conduct was required, rather than a subjective assessment of his intention. Specifically, the applicant argued that if the jury accepted his evidence that he genuinely believed his actions were in the best interests of Coronation Drive, he should have been acquitted, and the directions failed to adequately convey this to the jury.

The applicant's legal team argued that the trial judge's directions, by referring to "appropriate regard" for the company's rights and suggesting the prosecution did not have to prove the applicant did not make a subjective assessment of the company's interests, may have misled the jury. They submitted that the jury should have been directed that if the applicant honestly believed he was acting in the interests of Coronation Drive, this would negate the required intention to dispose of the property regardless of the owner's rights. The respondent, the Crown, argued that the offence did not require proof of a subjective belief on the part of the accused but rather that the jury had to be satisfied that the circumstances of the conduct were contrary to the owner's rights, drawing on English and Victorian case law. The respondent further contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal had correctly determined that the trial judge's directions were not apt to mislead the jury.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal.