R v Dillon; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)

Case [2015] QCA 155

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dillon; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 155

PARTIES:

R
v
DILLON, Graeme Anthony
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 194 of 2014
DC No 180 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Reference under s 668A Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 23 July 2014

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 March 2015

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The point of law referred:

“To satisfy the element of dishonesty [in s 408C Criminal Code] does the Crown have to prove that:

(a)     what the accused person did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people; and

(b)     the accused person must have realised that what he or she was doing was dishonest by those standards?”

is answered: “No”.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARDON, COMMUTATION OF PENALTY, REFERENCE ON PETITION FOR PARDON AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – REFERENCE TO COURT – where the respondent was charged with 11 counts of fraud under s 408C Criminal Code (Qld) – where the prosecution case was that he obtained money from a finance company on the basis of a representation that his companies had purchased forklift machines – where the prosecution alleged that at the time of each finance company payment, the forklifts had not been purchased so that he gave the finance company false invoices – where the Attorney-General under s 668A Criminal Code has referred to the Court of Appeal for its consideration and opinion the question of what the Crown have to prove to satisfy the element of dishonesty – where in Macleod, the High Court of Australia held as a necessary element of criminal liability, the prosecution must establish the quality of dishonesty according to ordinary notions – whether the term “dishonestly” in s 408C has its ordinary meaning rather than a special meaning importing that the accused person must obtain the property without a belief in a legal entitlement to it – whether Queensland Courts must now construe the term “dishonestly” in s 408C as requiring the prosecution to prove only that what the accused did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people – whether the prosecution need not prove that the accused person must have realised that what he or she was doing was dishonest by those standards

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 81
Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C, s 590AA, s 668A
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 130.3

Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22, followed
Macleod v The Queen (2003) 214 CLR 230; [2003] HCA 24, followed
Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493; [1998] HCA 7, followed
R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053; [1982]…

Continue reading R v Dillon; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dillon; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 155
Case
[2015] QCA 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dillon; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld), the respondent, Dillon, was charged with multiple counts of fraud under section 408C of the Criminal Code (Qld). The prosecution alleged that Dillon obtained money from a finance company based on a false representation that his companies had purchased forklift machines. The case involved a reference to the Court of Appeal concerning the interpretation of the term "dishonestly" in section 408C of the Criminal Code (Qld), particularly in light of the High Court’s decision in Macleod. The Attorney-General sought clarification on the elements the Crown must prove to satisfy the requirement of dishonesty in the context of fraud.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the term "dishonestly" in section 408C required the prosecution to prove that the accused not only engaged in conduct that was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people but also that the accused realised the dishonesty of their actions. The court needed to determine if the Queensland courts should adopt the interpretation of "dishonesty" as articulated in Macleod, where the High Court held that dishonesty is a necessary element of criminal liability and must be established according to ordinary notions.

The court held that to satisfy the element of dishonesty in section 408C, the Crown did not need to prove that the accused realised that their conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people. The court answered the referred question in the negative, affirming that the prosecution only needed to establish that the accused’s conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards, without the necessity of proving the accused’s awareness of the dishonesty. This interpretation aligns with the ordinary meaning of the term "dishonestly" and does not require a special meaning that the accused must lack a belief in legal entitlement to the property obtained.

No further orders were made beyond the court's answer to the point of law referred by the Attorney-General. The court’s decision clarified the standard of dishonesty required under section 408C, providing guidance for future cases involving similar charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

The point of law referred:

“To satisfy the element of dishonesty [in s 408C Criminal Code] does the Crown have to prove that:

(a) what the accused person did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people; and

(b) the accused person must have realised that what he or she was doing was dishonest by those standards?”

is answered: “No”.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.